Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy McGrath


 * 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 keep. WP:SNOW - withdrawn by nominator Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Amy McGrath

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Only news coverage is in relation to her campaign announcement video from this week. This should be a redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Kentucky, 2018. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WITHDRAW Thanks to User:Megalibrarygirl for the proper sourcing that convinces me this should be kept. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject is notable under GNG due to significant coverage in reliable sources. Campaign announcement went viral, candidate was interviewed and covered on multiple major news outlets.
 * NPR interview, CNN interview, Mediaite coverage of Morning Joe (MSNBC) coverage, Vox, Mother Jones, Fast Company, half a dozen to a dozen stories in the Lexington Herald-Leader dating back months, etc. This constitutes widespread coverage nationally and regionally of her campaign and her viral announcement video.
 * Failure to meet NPOLITICIAN does not mean she is non-notable. Jbbdude (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * True, it doesn't. But those sources don't establish GNG for "significant" coverage as it's all routine coverage in relation to her campaign. Those Lexington Herald-Leader stories you mention are all routine mentions as far as I can see. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think what you are missing is that she is receiving extensive national and international coverage because she was the first woman to fly an F18 into combat. Many people run for congress, but only those notable for something else get this much coverage.  So, this extensive coverage only lends further support for her notability for being the first woman to fly an F18 into combat. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per 's reasoning and this source. KGirl  (Wanna chat?) 17:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is WP:ROUTINE coverage for a political candidate for federal office. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's come from a notable journal called The Courier-Journal just to make it notable enough. KGirl  (Wanna chat?) 21:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The basis for her notability has nothing to do with her running as a politician. Her notability is being the first woman to fly an F18 into combat.  We have hundreds of articles such as this such as oldest people articles.  She may someday be notable as a politician, but that is irrelevant as of now. --I am One of Many (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "First woman to fly an F18 in combat" is not a notability criteria. We need sources that establish notability independent of her campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many articles now and in the past that establish "First woman to fly an F18 in combat" as notable. Indeed, all the current articles base her otherwise non-notable political run as notable based on her being the "First woman to fly an F18 in combat".--I am One of Many (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, per I am One of Many. Kierzek (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Enough coverage to demonstrate notability, which is all about seeing if we can trust the information. We have multiple interviews and such, so I think that we can trust the coverage. Also, voters might come here, seeing all the information in one place, thus making this article verifiable and useful. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  19:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not our role to give "all the information" about an unelected candidate to the voters "in one place" — that's what Ballotpedia is for. Wikipedia is for information about holders of notable political offices, not candidates for them. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The only reason she has and is receiving so much coverage in the media is because she was the first woman to fly an F18 in combat. If she had not done that, which makes her notable, there would be national or international coverage.  This simply about what she has done not her political ambitions. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I found articles about her going back to 2004 and 2007 which I added to her article and expanded the stub. She has been written about because of her work in the military and her induction into the aviation museum in KY. She is even more notable now that she is running and has a viral video that everyone is talking about. Notable both before and after. Definitely not ROUTINE, since she's made a military first and has had her career written about in the news and in a book (which I can't access... yet). Even her run for congress isn't what I'd call ROUTINE: not every candidate's videos go viral. Passes GNG easily. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It may be true that not every candidate's videos go "viral" per se, but "viral" is an unquantifiable criterion that any candidate can (and does) always assert that their campaign videos did whether the claim actually has any meat to it or not. (Not to mention that Wikipedia's single biggest problem these days is the constant creation and post-deletion re-re-re-recreation of articles about every single YouTuber who ever YouTubed, solely on the basis that virality has been claimed.) We've seen a lot of "this went viral" claims on Wikipedia for internet videos of no substantive or sustained notability, so you're just going to have to accept that I and a lot of other people quite rightly see the phrase "it went viral" as marshmallowy PR bumf that conveys "subject is a wannabe overinflating themselves for public relations purposes" rather than a genuinely substantive claim of notability in its own right. Canada has had candidates whose campaign videos went "viral" too — I'M WYATT SCOTT AND I'M RUNNING FOR PARLIAMENT! — but they didn't, and won't, get articles on that basis in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I recently started a post at the Village Pump regarding notability for political candidates that some of you may have opinions on. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: the first woman to fly an F-18, plus "inducted into the Aviation Museum of Kentucky's Hall of Fame in 2016", with coverage, seem notable enough. Pam  D  15:13, 5 August 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.