Talk:Jo Rae Perkins

Confused about deletion
Hi, , , and. Just wanted to ask about what's going on with this page, since I'm somewhat confused. It looks like there was a bit of back-and-forth on a proposed deletion, and that the article was blanked before the conclusion of the 7-day PROD phase. Was this article deleted in error? I'm unfamiliar with this procedure.

Anyway, it seems to me like this individual has achieved sufficient coverage for WP:GNG, though she may fail based on WP:SUSTAINED. I haven't look too far yet for coverage prior to the senate primary win, however, so the coverage may be there.

Just wanted to make sure everyone's on the same page with this. If I'm misinterpreting something, I'm open to the information. Thanks for your thoughts!Jlevi (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that it's a solid article I'm good with it. Just didn't want it to be speedily deleted by trigger happy admins before it had the chance to grow. Kingofthedead (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You can all debate the deletion, and see that nobody is trigger happy here, now that I've nominated it. She's not notable per WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, the two relevant guidelines. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, It is the current responsibility of every reputable information medium to expose evidence of the drift towards proto-fascism in the U.S. regardless of how nascent the modality of expression, e.g., graffiti on the wall of a Munich toilet in 1922. The noxious effect of proto-fascist ideology (pardon the expression) 'trumps' the otherwise standard requirement for 'sufficient coverage'. Maikolo99 (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , please read WP:RGW. We are not here to right great wrongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Potential additional sources

 * Jason Conger defends his votes for Oregon health exchange in Republican Senate forums (Oregonian, 2014)
 * Congress, District 4: Republicans have crowded field to choose from in May primary, while DeFazio faces newcomer (AP News, 2018) Includes more personal details.
 * Four Republicans to vie for Congressman Peter DeFazio’s seat (AP News, 2017)
 * Merkley: ‘No comment’ on GOP opponent’s QAnon support (Local TV KOIN, May 2020)
 * 
 * Merkley Draws First Challenger In 2014 Senate Race (Oregon Public Broadcasting, 2014)
 * Perennial Candidate Mark Callahan Heads For His Biggest Stage Yet. But How? (OPB, 2016)
 * Daily Barometer: OSU College Republicans Welcome GOP Candidates (OPB, 2014) Opinion on same-sex marriage
 * Statesman Journal: Four Excluded From GOP Senatorial Debate (OPB, 2014)
 * The Republican Challengers To Merkley And Kitzhaber (OPB, 2014) Brought constitution to debate, against Department of Education, the Federal Reserve, and federal land ownership in the West
 * Jo Rae Perkins of Albany announces bid for U.S. Senate (Albany Democrat Herald, 2014)
 * 
 * 
 * Four vie for Albany mayor (Albany Democrat-herald, 2010)
 * There are a ton of articles about Perkins in the Albany Democrat-Herald, and it looks like a pretty reliable local publication.

Jlevi (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Potentially useful local content:
 * An early riser — once a year (Democrat-herald, 2005)
 * Candidate explains "rough times" (Democrat-herald, 2010)
 * Jo Rae Perkins US Senate Candidate (April 2020, KGAL 20 minute interview)
 * Jlevi (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Right Wing Watch source
I would like to make a case for judicious use of the Right Wing Watch source here. , I'd love to hear your thoughts. In an RSN discussion regarding RWW, the consensus appears to be this: "RWW is a reliable source, but one which is often undue on account of its status as a partisan thinktank." In this very particular case, I think using this particular article is due. The primary detail that has elevated Perkins from local media to international media is her QAnon support. This RWW article details that support in greater detail and over a longer length of time than any other source, providing details that augment those found in nonpartisan sources that cannot be found elsewhere. Finally, this specific RWW article is referenced in several reliable sources, indicating its utility.

I support using it for now, though it should be replaced as soon as a nonpartisan source is available. Thoughts? Jlevi (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) If you are really interested in building consensus it would help if you actually followed through with WP:BRD. And if you are interested in edit warring then it would help if you followed through with that too. Don't do this halfway house of playing it both ways: revert my revert and then play niceties by asking for my opinion as if that is supposed to make me ok with the restoration of your disputed material.
 * 2) Lots of problems with your use of that noticeboard to justify the use of your preferred source. a) there is no consensus that that source is a reliable source - that, by your admission, is just your personal opinion of what the consensus is which, of course, doesn't determine what the consensus is. b) There are plenty of editors who argued against it's usage and even if the numbers were on your side of the argument that still wouldn't determine the consensus. c) It would be ideal if there was an administrator or a registration on RSN that determined its reliability status but absent that BURDEN and BRD means it's your job to establish the credibility of this source, not mine. d) Your version of the text lacks attribution which all of the participants to that discussion said your preferred (partisan) source should have. The fact that you re-reverted the text to your original version without attribution despite citing the noticeboard as part of your corroborating evidence means that you knowingly and willfully disregarded (or at the very least misrepresented) a significant part of the views/recommendations of the participants.
 * 3) With regard to the content a) the content sourced to RWW is already covered by reliable sources as is the unoriginal content that is in the RWW source. b) the features that makes what was written in RWW special (according to your interpretation) is also irrelevant. We don't need to know how great the scope and scale of her support for QAnon is when all that isneeded is to establish that she supports QAnon- which already includes the minimum of the scope and scale of her support and which also is, of course, covered by more than enough reliable sources. c) Your assertion of the features that makes what was written in RWW special (it details Perkins's QAnon support in greater detail and over a longer length of time than any other source) is a lie - at any rate that is just your opinion. The Vox and OPR sources provide as much detail (using your criteria of sufficiency) of Perkins's QAnon support as the RWW source. d) The fact that the original content in RWW was cited by other reliable sources further makes the case that those sources (and not RWW) should be cited. Flickotown (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Having looked again, I agree that I poorly weighed the consensus at RSN. Regardless, I appreciate your thoughts and will consider them regarding RWW in the future. Though I think there is a good argument for why it works in this very particular case, I agree that it would be far simpler to stick to the higher-quality sources fro this article. Jlevi (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Left-wing framing
the term "unsuccessful" should not be placed in the introduction part of the article. And are there better pictures of her out there? Are certain wiki articles run by the DNC? 62.226.78.111 (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)