Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathy Guerriero


 * 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   redirect to New York City Public Advocate election, 2013. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Cathy Guerriero

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable candidate for NYC Public Advocate. Running for an office does not necessarily establish notability nor does their appear to be anything in her life establish notability. red dog six (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment-She's a major candidate for office in New York City who would represent millions of people. That's significant. Msrpotus (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please cite how this meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Being a candidate for office does not automatically establish notability.
 * Cathy Guerriero falls within the category of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Msrpotus (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I suppose the issue here is whether her running for office would be considered, by our standard, one event for the purposes of WP:BLP1E. If we accept that the things that brought her to becoming a candidate represent significant enough a history to nullify WP:BLP1E then the obvious and significant coverage of her and her campaign get her over the WP:GNG line without any concern whatsoever, in my view. Stalwart 111  03:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not believe running alone is enough to meet the criteria for notability. Just holding an office is not enough to meet the criteria for notability.  In this case she is not an established politician nor has she met the criteria for notability via another effort. red dog six  (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No, possibly not, but significant coverage in independent reliable sources is enough, regardless of what she received the coverage for. There are, of course, a few exceptions to that "regardless", one being WP:BLP1E. I'm interesting in what others think about that aspect. Stalwart 111  04:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I proposed a merge of this article into the election's page for more-or-less the same reasons, but I think "significant press coverage" is tenuous here. Virtually all of Guerriero's web presence has been generated in the last eleven months, evidently by her campaign. Is a merge not the right idea here? Most of this page can be scrapped for now, but any relevance she might have has to do with a current event, right? Do we wait until the dust settles on the campaign? Ben (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * At the very least I would hope that this discussion considers page of other questionably-notable candidate, Reshma Saujani, whose page is an evolved form of this one.Ben (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, gotta say, I would have a problem with us having an article for one candidate for a particular minor office but not another, especially since this candidate's campaign seems to have received more coverage. Stalwart 111  05:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Should she be listed on the page (assuming one exists) for the election for this office? Yes. Should she have her own page?  No.  She's done nothing notable to warrant her own page.  Running for office, even President of the United States, does not mean you are now notable enough to warrant your own page.  I can run for President, however just because my name gets listed because I've sent in paperwork, doesn't mean I'm notable.  Caffeyw (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Essentially right -- isn't this what merge would be for? Does merge not deprecate Guerriero's page in favor of making Election page more robust? Excuse me if I don't understand the difference here.* Ben 06:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Essentially, yes, but the issue here is that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That is, per policy, enough to "warrant her own page". Just having your name on the ballot is not enough but then you're likely to be the subject of significant coverage just for being listed. In this case, she has received significant endorsements from various unions and has (related to those endorsement and independent of those endorsements) been the subject of coverage. As far as I'm concerned, she meets criteria 2 and 3 of WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Any reason to think otherwise? Stalwart 111  06:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keywords being multiple and reliable, right? I'm still learning here. I'm disinclined to consider CathyGuerriero.com a reliable source. I'm also wary of the consistently positive profiles she receives from Staten Island Live -- she is not explicitly endorsed by them, but she previously worked as a sports writer for the Staten Island Advance, the paper that owns that site. I'm not even accusing these sources of bias, but wouldn't we differentiate between independent coverage and the machinations of her campaign? * Ben 07:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * For educational purposes, can you explain what this page looks like if it is neither merged nor deleted? It needs significant revision for neutral tone and superfluous detail.* Ben 07:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * First part - yes and yes we would. But don't forget we're not just looking at what is in the article right now, but what could be in the article per WP:BEFORE and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, like this, this, this and this. Plus this article and this one, both of which are already in the article. Even with a couple removed because of a potential bias, there's still quite a bit there.
 * Second part - it needs paring back to only those claims that can be verified by reliable sources. With the sources above, that should be a little easier. Needing "significant revision for neutral tone and superfluous detail" is a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem, of course, not a reason for deletion. Stalwart 111  07:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And this and this. Stalwart 111  07:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm definitely not trying to dump this article, forgive me if it seems that way, I'm just trying to understand. Most of those articles aren't neutral sources; they're all either from sources of potential bias or positions of definite advocacy for her campaign. What is "reliable" in this situation? And wouldn't a pared-down version be an almost completely empty article? Even after some searching, I have found no record (online or otherwise) of her time with the archdiocese or as a business strategist, let alone her position managing logistics for the '08 papal visit. I don't doubt that these things are /true/ but verifiable seems unlikely, right? At present, all we seem to be able to say is that she exists, and she's running, and she's got some endorsements. I can't even corroborate details via sources like ballotpedia or followthemoney.com because she's not listed on either of those sites. If there is enough substance available to fill out this article, then I am all for it, but I don't know where that would be found. I defer to your experience, of course, but I'm concerned that giving the article benefit-of-the-doubt won't have the desired effect of laying the groundwork for a more successful page. * Ben 07:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kneuronak (talk • contribs)


 * No, not at all, nor am I particularly zealous about keeping it (and haven't even lodged a proper "keep vote" yet). Always good to talk these things through in cases where there are questions and I'm glad reddogsix brought here for discussion. I've added some of those sources. I suppose the issue is that in any election campaign, sources might be biased and there's always an extent to which coverage of a campaign might come across as advocacy for that campaign. There are certainly a couple in that list that read more like media endorsements than matter-of-fact reporting. But in the US, media outlets routinely endorse one candidate or another (something alien to many other countries around the world). If we nixed all articles from outlets that endorsed candidates, we'd end up not covering US politics at all - most of the major papers end up endorsing someone, as I understand it. I'm from Australia where we don't even have elected "Public Advocate" positions so even that is alien to me. All I can go on is WP:GNG. Stalwart 111  09:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right that media endorsements are a little strange, but I think it's worth noting the difference between The New York Times endorsing Barack Obama a week before the election, and single-purpose "news blogs" advocating for a candidate three months out. Here is an article about endorsements in the public advocate election that does a much better job of remaining neutral. I would feel more comfortable with this if the other sources resembled that. I am probably reaching the end of the meaningful contributions I can make on this particular aspect of the discussion, so I will leave further source questions for someone else. * Ben 13:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My position: the sources we have are inadequate to back up anything but the shallowest claims; "Cathy Guerriero has received x, y, and z endorsements from the community". The remainder of the page is largely superfluous, unsourced information, and I think the page could arguably be condensed to two paragraphs: the lead, and a short description of the ongoing election. At that point, I think it's worth merging, because the Election page contains very little useful information and could benefit from what we have here. I think it's especially useful because Guerriero definitely does not pass WP:GNG if she doesn't win the election, and nor, probably, does her opponent Reshma Saujani, but information about them will always remain relevant to the Election page. * Ben 13:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to jump in here, since I haven't gotten an answer: what sources would be adequate? The NYTimes might be more trustworthy than the Daily News or Staten Island Advance or various other smaller news sources, but I don't see why there's a reason to doubt them in this case. Msrpotus (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't strongly disagree with any of that. I'm still not convinced to the point where I think this should be kept, but I might wait to see if anyone has a view on my 1E question. Good chat! Stalwart 111  13:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed! :-) (My sense of the 1E question is that it hinges on her involvement with the archdiocese/papal visit. Her academic career seems to have been limited to a single senior adjunct position, which is to say that she has taught classes; I have not found any scholarly work by her. Her business consultancy also seems to be campaign window-dressing; I have not found a website or any record beyond a two-year engagement working in pharmaceutical development. If independent reference or record can be found to support the claim that she oversaw a portion of the 2008 papal visit to the US, then it's definitely worth consideration by someone better versed than me in notability within the Catholic church.)
 * Thanks for working with me here. I consider this a case of WP:ENCOURAGE. * Ben 14:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have found sources from both of the schools the article claims she teaches at. Teacher's College and NYUStonehengee (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I'll weigh in at this point. I'm uncomfortable with how ready Ben is to disregard various news agencies as untrustworthy. Granted SI Live could be seen as not neutral, though I'd hardly argue that that makes them a bad source. The world isn't neutral, much less the news, and yet in no academic field I'm aware of is a source with an opinion on the subject deemed inherently unreliable. Unreliability seems to rely on the organization and its general reputation, not its having of opinions. However, even if we were to put SI Live aside, as Stalwart has pointed out a cursory Google search provides a plethora of reliable sources corroborating every important point in the article. Now, where they got that information and whether or not they corroborated it with sources outside the campaign is impossible to know. However, is Wikipedia in the business of judging the fact checkers at the NY Daily News and others? Because as far as I understand it, the Daily News has never come under serious scrutiny for its reliability. Yet to say there are no reliable sources backing up the previously mentioned parts of the article is to throw suspicion on not just SI Live but a laundry list of local news agencies. My point: reliable sources exist to back up every important point in the article.Stonehengee (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm still learning the ropes here but what would be a reliable enough source for these claims? I live in New York and thought it was odd she didn't have a page (especially since I think there are a lot of other politicians who have done even less who do have pages) so I created it, but if there are other, more reliable sources needed, I'm happy to look for them. Msrpotus (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

So at this point, what do we do? Seems like there are at least some people (myself included) who think Cathy Guerriero is a legitimate subject and meets the criteria. Msrpotus (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect- To New York City Public Advocate election, 2013 unless included coverage shows WP:GNG is met. Discrete search term, and already appropriately included in the election article. Dru of Id (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect- To New York City Public Advocate election, 2013. A short section on the subject's campaign (and career) could be included there. Enos733 (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2013 (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.