Talk:Kathy Barnette

2 sources

 * CNN:. Washington Examiner:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also this profile from 2020 (surprised no one found this in the first AfD). Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Some politifact: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's also some other sources and a some useful material in the deleted versions, if I have some time I'll try to surface them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Galobtter There is a copy of the original article from 2021 available on the Internet Archive. link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210413181503/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Barnette  Physeters ✉ 21:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's good, there's other recreations from this month and I was looking at the deleted versions directly (using the admin capabilities). Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that admins could do that. That's quite a nice feature!  Physeters ✉ 22:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Physeters, you can also ask an admin to let you see deleted stuff, WP:REFUND. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"She has espoused homophobic, Islamophobic views and has promoted conspiracy theories."
IMO the above sentence does not belong in the lead. The lead is only three sentences; this should not be one of them. It’s not a description of who she is or what she does for a living. (Which actually isn't clear; some sources describe her as a "conservative activist" and others as a "political commentator".) This material is in the article text as a single sentence; maybe it could be expanded upon there. But in my opinion pulling a single negative sentence out of the article and putting it in the lead violates WP:Due weight as well as WP:Neutrality. I see that someone removed it but it was promptly restored. User:Discospinster, can we talk about that?

One other problem: we describe her as an author but say nothing about her writing in the article itself; shouldn’t that part of her biography be expanded beyond just a mention under “publications”? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I restored information that was removed without apparent reason. There was additional content removed along with what was in the lead. ... disco spinster   talk  22:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It does seem the sources strongly mention that, e.g for the nytimes profile basically the first thing that's mentioned after describing that she's running for the senate is her views. Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * her notability comes almost enitrely from her radical views and are mentioned in every non primary source  PRAXIDICAE💕  23:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, content does not belong in lead. Additionally, the info should read that she has been described as "homophobic, etc", otherwise this violates the NPOV rule for living persons. User:Ageofultron 12:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The primary is today, results tonight. If she doesn't go anywhere in the primary, she becomes just another two-time-loser politician and I am going to be tempted to AfD the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I would agree with the deletion, and look forward to it. Zaathras (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems due and well referenced. Misrepresenting sources isn't a solution. WP:ARBAP2 and WP:ARBBLP apply. --Hipal (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This article was deleted TWICE by community consensus and salted. Not sure how why it got approved at AfC after that. I don't think AfC can overturn an AfD. And CNN has already said it's a two-man race now. ― Tartan357  Talk 03:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tartan357 I approved it. Only one AfD had community consensus, the other AfD was a speedy delete. The previous AfD result obviously doesn't apply anymore since there is much much more coverage now. I think the combination of the lengthy Politico article from 2020 about the previous run (national coverage) + the substantial sources on this run is easily enough for WP:NBIO, but we can re-debate it I suppose. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:PAGEDECIDE applies. Someone who has only generated coverage in the context of a failed primary bid does not need their own article, because all the content can easily go into the election article. ― Tartan357  Talk 03:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the national coverage for the previous campaign because this means there's no one article she can be merged to - she has generated coverage for two different runs. We usually have a separate article if there's not one place for the material to go. Also the coverage she has received is not of the routine sort that people campaigning receive. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no problem where to redirect. It would not be redirected to her 2020 run for office. Even in 2021 when this was first AfDed, the redirect was to the 2022 Senate race, not the 2020 run for the House. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , I would support deletion as well. The draft absolutely should not have been moved to mainspace hours before losing the primary election. Or can we just move back to draft? Reywas92Talk 18:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Named references
Is a great thing, but it is helpful to the general Wikipedian if they have a name that indicates what they are. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Should we redirect this to the campaign article?
First, some history for those who can’t see deleted pages: The article was originally created on April 6, 2021. There were 10 references, none of them to reliable sources. It was nominated for deletion, and the result on April 19, 2021 was: delete, then redirect to the 2022 primary article. Then in May 9-10 2022 the redirect was expanded several times, restored as a redirect several times, deleted per G4, and restored as a full-protected redirect. The current article was created as a draft on May 16, 2022. On May 17 Galobtter deleted the protected redirect per G6, and moved the draft into the namespace. That is the article we are looking at now.

My own opinion is that we should restore the (protected) redirect, since she is simply a twice-unsuccessful candidate for office, with no other claim to fame. Sources can’t even decide what she does for a living, describing her as a “conservative activist” or “political commentator. The bulk of her coverage occurred in the last two weeks, suggesting a case of BLP1E. However, IMO restoring the redirect would require an AfD, considering the lack of consensus here and the large number of people who have edited the article. I will consider doing that a little later, I don't have time right now. Unless someone else wants to propose it? -- MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the references in the current article, I am getting less inclined toward redirect. Although most of the references are very recent, they show national coverage from many major reliable sources. BTW the references are a mess. Some don't include the publication date, some don't include the name of the publication, there's one to one of her own campaign videos. If somebody has the time and wants this article to be improved and kept, I would encourage you to fix the references. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Philadelphia Inquirer article
Can someone take a look at this 2021 article about Barnette? : I can’t access it right now. I think it may include helpful biographic details. Thriley (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm sorting through it now. It mostly talks about alleged voter fraud claims she, and others like Mike Lindell made. It should be useful though in piecing together her story before she fell in the national spotlight.  Physeters ✉ 00:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Election category
@TJMSmith, other informed editors. About the categories changed here, is a primary meant to count as an election in context, or are those cats only meant for people in the "actual" election? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Looking at the the other years categories, i.e. 2020, it looks like wiki notable candidates in both the primary and general elections are included. It is a subcategory of "Candidates in the 2022 United States elections." TJMSmith (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/In the media
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)