Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Hartson


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. G11 entirely promotional. The arguments about notability are secondary, but the consensus of policy based arguments on that issue is also for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Alison Hartson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article on a political candidate who has not yet served in office. I originally PROD'd the page but it was removed by the page's creator. Meatsgains (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Meatsgains instructed me to "# remove the text that looks like this: " so that was my intention in removing the PROD, my apologies if this broke protocol. It isn't supposed to be promotional, I literally wanted to know about this person, but was disappointed there wasn't an unbiased article about her with multiple perspectives represented. That is why I created the article, and invite everyone to contribute. If there is a "rule" that specifically prohibits creating wikipedia pages for political candidates who have not served in office, please cite it and I will happily concede this debate. --Mattomynameo (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are certainly able remove the tag if you improve the article, which you did somewhat. However, at this point IMO, there still lacks references establishing notability. I suggest you continue to expand the page and provide additional reliable sources if you can find them and I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination. I would still like feedback from others as well though. Meatsgains (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Hartson may become notable in the future, but at the moment it unfortunately seems WP:TOOSOON. No significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added content regarding her previous position as co-National Director of Wolf PAC, as well as significant coverage of her candidacy and statements since announcing. This includes Newsweek, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Daily Kos, The Hill, Bloomberg News, several written well before her announcement, to go along with the CNN coverage already in the article.  There seems to be plenty more sources to add.Trackinfo (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Any candidate in any election can always be sourced to some degree of candidacy coverage, so the fact that such coverage exists does not assist in making her more notable than all the other candidates who have similar coverage too. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep She is now notable in two instances (national co-director of Wolf PAC and major candidate in the California Senate race). Before the campaign announcement, I would have said differently, but now that she is notable in two things that already have Wiki pages, I think this article should be kept. Davey2116 (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. I'm thinking about moving the content of this article into a subsection of United States Senate election in California, 2018. In reflecting, and particularly in reading the user page of AusLondonder, I believe you are correct that this could be considered "over-reporting" of United States and particularly California news... If this were my course of action, what clean-up should I do for deleting the new article? Thanks for your time & support. --User:Mattomynameo 17:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, or redirect per Mattomynameo. Candidates for office do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, especially when they're still just candidates in primaries — a person has to win the election and thereby hold office to clear WP:NPOL, not just stand as a candidate. This is not, however, referenced to the depth of reliable source coverage needed to either deem her candidacy a special case or make Wolf PAC a valid claim of preexisting notability — of the fifteen footnotes here, nine are to primary sources or unreliable blogs that cannot assist notability at all, while a further four just glancingly namecheck her existence in articles that aren't about her. Which leaves just two sources that actually speak to potential notability by being reliable and independent and substantively about her — but two pieces of media coverage aren't enough to make a candidate in a primary encyclopedically notable by themselves, because any candidate in any primary could always show two pieces of media coverage. To make her candidacy "major" for the purposes of earning special treatment under NPOL, what we would require is evidence that the coverage is exploding wildly out of scale to what could normally be expected — the Christine O'Donnell scenario — and not just evidence that she's getting exactly the same run of the mill coverage as every other candidate in every primary. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Draft-ify it's too soon to say she's a "major candidate" in the 2018 California Senate race. The article is currently written in a promotional way, as well. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, at least for the duration of this election cycle... I don't know the rules of Wikipedia, but there is reason to believe political opponents would scour the web to erase mentions of their competition--meaning Wikipedia is particularly vulnerable of people with political motivations wanting to delete this page. Keeping it alive during the election is apparently a useful and effective information resource for individuals motivated to cultivate and develop this page. Versus the consideration of removal, which is a powerful political weapon that can be abused to cause harm to others. Clearly one of those two outcomes is more just, acceptable, and abiding to what I expect from Wikipedia as a lame consumer (and a donor to and advocate of Wikipedia fundraisers). I hope it is not acceptable practice that routinely people are bullied off of this platform with accusations that their subject is too obscure... there should be opportunity afforded to the public from this valuable information utility. If the subject of this article becomes obscure, then sure, archive or delete it... but at this time I think it's notewothy and valuable to have an article (I came here for more information, and found it), and the political context makes rejection unfavorable and risky. 75.84.148.0 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The rules of Wikipedia are that unelected candidates who have no prior claim of notability for other reasons are not entitled to keep Wikipedia articles just for the fact of being candidates, even just "for the duration of the election campaign" — because such articles routinely get whitewashed into non-neutral campaign brochures which violate our WP:NPOV rules, and are simultaneously vulnerable to biased editing by ideological opponents who violate NPOV the other way by dirtwashing it with similarly non-neutral attack edits. The article can and will be restored and expanded in 2018 if she wins the seat, but merely being a candidate is not a valid reason for an article on here in and of itself. And it's not political bias, either, because the same rule applies regardless of whether the candidate is a Democrat or a Republican or a Green or a Libertarian or whatever else. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong delete The opening is a total violation of Neutral point of view rules. So bad infact that at a minimum we would need to put this article though TNT. However as an unelected candidate the subject is also not notable, so there is no reason to have the article at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, according to the edit history the biggest violation of NPOV rules in the article's opening, "a group seeking to destroy free speech gauranteed by the first admendment", was placed there by you. I'm not defending the introduction as it was previously (and is now again) written as being perfectly neutral ("corrupting" in particular being a word that definitely had to go), but it was certainly closer to neutrality than what you changed it to was. Care to clarify? (But thanks for illustrating exactly the point I just made in response to 75* directly above you, though.) Bearcat (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am aghast. Inserting blatantly improper, inaccurate content like this, what we call vandalism, certainly should disqualify anything JPL has to say . . . in regards to this article and the numerous other comments this editor has made in efforts to delete other valid wikipedia content.  JPL should make an effort to prove his account was hacked or something, which still would not explain his above apparent intent to use that malicious editing as a case to delete this article.  We long term, named editors carry our credibility on every signature we leave behind on our work.  You've just destroyed your credibility.  It calls into question JPL's entire body of work, some 300,000 edits.  Bearcat challenged JPL to explain himself.  He didn't. , shouldn't this go to WP:ANI, followed by a review of the numerous articles where JPL's strong opinion has led to the subsequent destruction of content?Trackinfo (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's definitely problematic, but kindly don't overstate the ability of one editor to somehow singlehandedly control the existence or "destruction" of content — AFD discussions are a matter of consensus being established one way or the other by the participation of a number of editors, and even one editor's strong opinion can't kill an article by itself if other editors aren't swayed by it. JPL, further, actually quite rarely expresses much more than a short comment of support or opposition in most AFD discussions where I encounter him. So, yeah, what he did here was certainly problematic, but not to the point that we would have to retroactively review his entire AFD history. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is probably not the best place to argue on past AfD discussions. The issue here is JPL's irresponsible editing and using that editing as support for his strong suggestion to delete this article.  I will go to Bearcat's talk page to discuss the failures of the AfD process.  Here, we should completely discount JPLs argument. Trackinfo (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Davey2116 (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.