590:. This is one of the most important figures in US politics, who has been considered untouchable for 30 years, receiving a credible challenge. In 10 years, Buttar will either be notable because he won (and served as an example of the Democratic party's shift into the "AOC era") or lost, and served to demonstrate the limits of that shift. The fact that candidacy got to this point—a general election challenge—is notable.
774:-passing notability claim. Being an incumbent officeholder's "first left-wing challenger in Y amount of time" is not, in and of itself, a reason why any significant number of people would still remember his name in 2030, even if he loses the race he's running in. Being an incumbent politician's "first left-wing challenger" is not inherently important or enduringly noteworthy in and of itself.
619:
Firstly, the understanding and interpretation of policies is debated and disputed all the time on here. So it isn't just a matter of reading the letter of a policy statement — you also have to familiarize yourself with established consensus around how the policies are applied in actual practice when
655:
accepted as "inherently" notable. For instance, if a person wins election to an NPOL-passing office, then you get to start the article as soon as one source can be added to verify that they won the election, and it will be kept on that basis even though it still needs significant improvement before
734:
First off, congratulations on winning the “Wall of Text award for unnecessary explanation”. Secondly, BLP1E cannot be invoked here because the coverage identified was published months apart, clearly not just in the course of one news cycle. And also, there was clearly an argument set out that you
503:
be exempted from NPOL, and NPOL itself would literally never apply to anybody at all anymore. Rather, to make a non-winning candidate for office notable enough for a
Knowledge (XXG) article, he needs to pass one of two tests: either (a) he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that
546:, and the four that are left aren't enough to make his candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies. Even Gaelan's 12 sources above still aren't enough to make his candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies, because every other candidate can always also show 12 sources.
538:. But of the 34 footnotes here, 18 are tweets, three are to his own self-published website about his own campaign, four are other primary sources like other people's or organizations' self-published websites, three are to raw tables of election results, one is a YouTube video and one is a
595:
Finally, the state of the article now is not a notability argument. I completely agree that the current citations aren't great, but that's why I found a bunch more sources! And sure, every candidate can find 12 sources. But in the national media? I'm pretty sure that's unusual.
647:, and treating some contexts as less notability-making than other contexts. A person with just one or two media hits can pass GNG if those hits are verifying that the person has accomplished something we deem "inherently" notable, and a person with 15 or 20 media hits can
632:
that the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough, precisely because our established consensus that candidates are not all notable enough for articles on here would be inherently meaningless if every candidate could always exempt themselves from
414:
Bolded sources are listed as "generally reliable" on RSP, although of course that doesn't preclude the others from being reliable sources. I didn't bold
Buzzfeed News, because the article is post-2019, and therefore "some editors recommend exercising more caution."
975:(after she won the Democratic primary). In both of these cases, the candidate became commonly known nationally and internationally. In addition, this page currently reads like a campaign brochure - which is not the purpose of this project. --
703:
importance. Basically, if you can't show that he had preexisting notability for another reason that would already have gotten him an article anyway, then the test he has to pass is not just a reason why he might be of interest to some people
585:
pretty exceptional. Unusually for a House candidate, he's received extensive coverage in the national media. The reason for this—which also forms a pretty good argument for the 10 year test, IMO—is in the headline of the
Intercept article:
575:
First, as best I can tell, your argument has little basis in policy. NPOL explicitly allows for candidates to get articles if they pass GNG, and GNG has no requirement that the subject has an unusual amount of coverage or anything like
552:
significance of our article subjects, not just their temporary newsiness, and simply running as a candidate in an election the person has not won is not automatically a mark of enduring significance in and of itself.
660:
article — but a person who has merely been a non-winning candidate for office, or a holder of a minor local office (such as a smalltown municipal councillor) that is not accepted as a notable one, can still fall
235:
924:
individual seems both notable for his role in challenging the incumbant to the seat and his previous work in the private sector. additionally article is still underconscruction by other editors i believe.
93:
88:
83:
753:
Firstly, I didn't say BLP1E has anything to do with this — I raised BLP1E as an example of why just counting the footnotes for their number is not an automatic GNG-maker in and of itself. It's merely one
735:
just ignored completely that the nature of this coverage would cause this person to pass the 10-year rule. Your position inexplicably seems to be that being just a candidate for office automatically
512:
significance, such that even if he loses the election and then never accomplishes another more notable thing again as long as he lives, people will still be looking for information about him in
450:, clearly there are enough sources out there to pass GNG, and these sources also clearly provide exceptional coverage as he has been covered in National News publications, not just local media.
809:
then the test he has to pass is not just a reason why he might be of interest to some people today, but a credible and convincing reason why an article about him will still be necessary in 2030
376:. I'd requested this to be draftified at REFUND so I could put it together, but it looks like someone else created a new article in the meantime. Anyway, I think this pretty clearly meets GNG:
388:
467:. People do not get Knowledge (XXG) articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won, but the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself a
291:
770:
does. And secondly, any notability claim that boils down in its essence to "first person with X characteristic to do a not inherently notable thing" is not in and of itself a
311:
188:
407:
906:-- per the other arguments for its deletion. Also, that has to be the most pointless infobox I have ever had the misfortune to see, and I have seen a few in my time.
229:
404:
78:
872:
Sorry if I came across as sarcastic in my reply—I just wanted to make sure my argument went unaddressed. That being said, your reply feels pretty close to violating
195:
120:
135:
1011:. This was deleted less than two years ago, and other than running yet again, there's no new evidence of notability. In 2020, everybody knows we are not
548:
As always, Knowledge (XXG)'s job is not to maintain an article about everybody whose name happens to show up in the current news cycle — we consider the
967:
are the articles in Salon and the Hill. However, our standard for keeping unelected candidates is the campaign coverage needs to rise to the level of
681:
that specific event, are not automatically entitled to keep articles just because they've technically passed an arbitrary number of media hits.
526:
be allowed to have an article that was written like a campaign brochure: that is, bulletpointed lists of his political opinions sourced to his
635:
GNG is not simply a matter of counting up the footnotes and keeping anybody who technically meets or exceeds an arbitrary number of them: GNG
504:
would already have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy, or (b) he can demonstrate a reason why his candidacy would pass the
665:
the notability bar even with sourcing that numbers well into the double digits, if they cannot show strong evidence that they're markedly
687:
notability of our article topics, not just their current newsiness: making a candidate notable enough for a
Knowledge (XXG) article is
620:
they come up for debate in similar situations. And the established consensus is as I described: every candidate in every election can
380:
115:
108:
17:
161:
156:
396:
165:
1028:
984:
951:
934:
916:
886:
860:
826:
783:
748:
725:
606:
562:
459:
440:
425:
368:
343:
323:
303:
283:
61:
383:
394:
386:
148:
1019:; we are a charity and a general encyclopedia. Lots of people run for public office, as I did, and even get local coverage.
250:
129:
125:
401:
217:
57:
669:
than the tens or hundreds of thousands of other people who've done the same thing. Similarly, we also have a rule called
883:
823:
603:
437:
422:
1047:
40:
930:
959:
Unelected candidates (even those who challenge the incumbent
Speaker of the US House of Representatives) do not pass
542:
personal essay on Medium.com — which means 30 of the 34 footnotes are not reliable or notability-supporting sources
947:
744:
455:
339:
412:
972:
211:
53:
673:, whereby people who receive a blip of media coverage in the context of a specific event, but cannot show any
628:
claim that they have passed GNG and are therefore exempted from having to satisfy NPOL at all — so we have an
356:
926:
207:
1016:
1043:
36:
430:
Also, it’s worth noting that all of the sources I linked were published after the last AfD nomination.
968:
943:
740:
451:
335:
257:
527:
243:
530:
Twitter tweets are not support for his notability. Notability does not hinge on what the subject
319:
299:
279:
152:
873:
670:
539:
360:
410:
398:
1024:
980:
856:
779:
721:
558:
104:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1042:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
997:
993:
960:
942:
I have restored the history of version deleted in the previous AFD, if anyone is interested.
771:
696:
505:
476:
352:
267:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
880:
820:
762:
of media hits the person can show counts for a lot less toward the notability race than the
600:
434:
419:
964:
468:
271:
223:
364:
624:
show some evidence of campaign coverage, and thus every candidate in every election can
1008:
909:
315:
295:
275:
144:
67:
1020:
1004:
976:
867:
852:
798:
775:
717:
567:
554:
182:
1012:
877:
817:
597:
431:
416:
695:
news cycle, it is a matter of demonstrating that his candidacy would pass the
816:
In case you missed it, I made a case for this in the comment you replied to.
495:
show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then
266:
Campaign advertisement masquerading as a
Knowledge (XXG) article. Fails
708:, but a credible and convincing reason why an article about him will
588:
NANCY PELOSI TO RECEIVE FIRST GENUINE LEFT-WING CHALLENGE IN 30 YEARS
739:
someone from having a
Knowledge (XXG) page, which is ridiculous.
1036:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
516:
because of the sheer lasting importance of his candidacy itself.
691:
simply a matter of showing that his name exists in the
178:
174:
170:
242:
94:
Articles for deletion/Shahid Buttar (4th nomination)
89:
Articles for deletion/Shahid Buttar (3rd nomination)
84:
Articles for deletion/Shahid Buttar (2nd nomination)
256:
651:GNG if those hits all exist in contexts that are
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1050:). No further edits should be made to this page.
310:Note: This discussion has been included in the
292:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
290:Note: This discussion has been included in the
312:list of California-related deletion discussions
758:of how our policies explicitly state that the
807:
8:
136:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
570:: I have several issues with this argument.
334:a non-notable candidate for public office.
309:
289:
522:pass either NPOL or GNG, he would still
76:
766:of what the person is getting covered
643:of what the person is getting covered
587:
581:However, the amount of coverage here
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
79:Articles for deletion/Shahid Buttar
74:
683:As I said before, we consider the
24:
639:also a matter of testing for the
656:it can actually be considered a
534:, it hinges on what the subject
355:. Knowledge (XXG) is also not a
121:Introduction to deletion process
1:
963:. The best case for meeting
378:Post-Super-Tuesday sources:
111:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1067:
1029:02:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
985:04:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
952:04:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
935:21:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
917:07:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
887:22:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
861:14:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
827:19:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
784:14:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
749:21:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
726:04:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
607:23:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
563:20:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
460:22:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
441:19:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
426:19:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
369:18:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
344:18:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
324:17:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
304:17:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
284:17:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
62:16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
843:missed it, that case was
1039:Please do not modify it.
973:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
518:Furthermore, even if he
32:Please do not modify it.
811:
73:AfDs for this article:
630:established consensus
109:Articles for deletion
475:from having to pass
969:Christine O'Donnell
359:. Try Ballotpedia.
54:Academic Challenger
1017:nor a resume host
927:Epluribusunumyall
336:John Pack Lambert
326:
306:
126:Guide to deletion
116:How to contribute
1058:
1041:
914:
912:
871:
802:
712:be necessary in
499:candidate would
392:Earlier sources:
261:
260:
246:
198:
186:
168:
106:
34:
1066:
1065:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1048:deletion review
1037:
944:Graeme Bartlett
910:
908:
865:
796:
741:Devonian Wombat
452:Devonian Wombat
203:
194:
159:
143:
140:
103:
100:
98:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1064:
1062:
1053:
1052:
1032:
1031:
987:
954:
937:
919:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
832:
831:
830:
829:
814:
812:
805:
803:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
729:
728:
682:
634:
612:
611:
610:
609:
593:
591:
579:
577:
573:
571:
547:
540:user-generated
528:self-published
517:
462:
445:
444:
443:
371:
357:WP:CRYSTALBALL
346:
328:
327:
307:
264:
263:
200:
139:
138:
133:
123:
118:
101:
99:
97:
96:
91:
86:
81:
75:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1063:
1051:
1049:
1045:
1040:
1034:
1033:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
988:
986:
982:
978:
974:
970:
966:
962:
958:
955:
953:
949:
945:
941:
938:
936:
932:
928:
923:
920:
918:
915:
913:
905:
902:
901:
888:
885:
882:
879:
875:
869:
864:
863:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
842:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
828:
825:
822:
819:
815:
813:
810:
806:
804:
800:
795:
794:
793:
792:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
752:
751:
750:
746:
742:
738:
733:
732:
731:
730:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
702:
698:
697:ten year test
694:
690:
686:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
659:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
631:
627:
623:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
608:
605:
602:
599:
594:
592:
589:
584:
580:
578:
574:
572:
569:
566:
565:
564:
560:
556:
551:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
515:
511:
507:
506:ten year test
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
483:candidate in
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
463:
461:
457:
453:
449:
446:
442:
439:
436:
433:
429:
428:
427:
424:
421:
418:
413:
411:
409:
408:
405:
403:
402:
399:
397:
395:
393:
389:
387:
385:
384:
381:
379:
375:
372:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
347:
345:
341:
337:
333:
330:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
308:
305:
301:
297:
293:
288:
287:
286:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
259:
255:
252:
249:
245:
241:
237:
234:
231:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
213:
209:
206:
205:Find sources:
201:
197:
193:
190:
184:
180:
176:
172:
167:
163:
158:
154:
150:
146:
145:Shahid Buttar
142:
141:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
122:
119:
117:
114:
113:
112:
110:
105:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
80:
77:
69:
68:Shahid Buttar
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1038:
1035:
1001:
989:
956:
939:
921:
907:
903:
848:
844:
840:
839:And in case
808:
767:
763:
759:
755:
737:disqualifies
736:
713:
709:
705:
700:
692:
688:
684:
678:
674:
667:more special
666:
662:
657:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
629:
625:
621:
582:
549:
543:
536:accomplishes
535:
531:
523:
519:
513:
509:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
472:
464:
447:
406:
400:
391:
382:
377:
373:
348:
331:
265:
253:
247:
239:
232:
226:
220:
214:
204:
191:
102:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1013:Ballotpedia
677:notability
230:free images
849:convincing
489:everywhere
1044:talk page
1009:Cassianto
911:Cassianto
487:election
473:exemption
37:talk page
1046:or in a
874:WP:CIVIL
701:enduring
685:enduring
675:enduring
671:WP:BLP1E
550:enduring
510:enduring
316:Muboshgu
296:Muboshgu
276:Muboshgu
189:View log
130:glossary
39:or in a
1021:Bearian
1005:Bearcat
998:WP:SPAM
994:WP:SOAP
977:Enos733
961:WP:NPOL
940:Comment
868:Bearcat
853:Bearcat
799:Bearcat
776:Bearcat
772:WP:10YT
764:context
756:example
718:Bearcat
693:current
679:outside
641:context
568:Bearcat
555:Bearcat
477:WP:NPOL
471:-based
353:WP:NPOL
268:WP:NPOL
236:WPÂ refs
224:scholar
162:protect
157:history
107:New to
1002:accord
990:Delete
965:WP:GNG
957:Delete
904:Delete
878:Gaelan
818:Gaelan
760:number
626:always
622:always
598:Gaelan
544:at all
501:always
493:always
469:WP:GNG
465:Delete
432:Gaelan
417:Gaelan
351:Fails
349:Delete
332:Delete
272:WP:GNG
208:Google
166:delete
50:delete
851:one.
710:still
706:today
663:below
576:that.
497:every
485:every
481:every
361:KidAd
251:JSTOR
212:books
196:Stats
183:views
175:watch
171:links
16:<
1025:talk
1007:and
996:and
992:per
981:talk
948:talk
931:talk
922:Keep
857:talk
780:talk
745:talk
722:talk
714:2030
699:for
658:good
649:fail
559:talk
532:says
514:2030
508:for
491:can
456:talk
448:Keep
374:Keep
365:talk
340:talk
320:talk
314:. –
300:talk
294:. –
280:talk
274:. –
270:and
244:FENS
218:news
179:logs
153:talk
149:edit
58:talk
971:or
845:not
841:you
768:for
689:not
653:not
645:for
633:it.
524:not
520:did
258:TWL
187:– (
1027:)
1015:,
1000:;
983:)
950:)
933:)
884:✏️
881:đź’¬
876:.
859:)
847:a
824:✏️
821:đź’¬
782:)
747:)
724:)
716:.
637:is
604:✏️
601:đź’¬
583:is
561:)
479:—
458:)
438:✏️
435:đź’¬
423:✏️
420:đź’¬
367:)
342:)
322:)
302:)
282:)
238:)
181:|
177:|
173:|
169:|
164:|
160:|
155:|
151:|
60:)
52:.
1023:(
979:(
946:(
929:(
870::
866:@
855:(
801::
797:@
778:(
743:(
720:(
557:(
454:(
390:.
363:(
338:(
318:(
298:(
278:(
262:)
254:·
248:·
240:·
233:·
227:·
221:·
215:·
210:(
202:(
199:)
192:·
185:)
147:(
132:)
128:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.