Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene McArthur Albarran


 * 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. This has been open long enough. Although this was close to a "no consensus" result, the arguments that much of the coverage constitutes routine local coverage of the subject's candidacy are persuasive. Vanamonde (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Charlene McArthur Albarran

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Albarran is a candidate for the US house, but candidates at this level are only notable if elected. So unless she is elected come November, she is not notable. Her previous role as Miss Idaho USA is also not enough to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean they only satisfy WP:NPOL if they are elected. WP:GNG notability does not require being elected, and is the sum of attention to the topic from all sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unelected candidates for office are not eligible for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and source a credible claim that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article independently of her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not merely run in it, to collect notability from the election itself. No prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat, but nothing written or sourced here makes her notable enough to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean they only satisfy WP:NPOL if and after they are elected. Being elected adds to previous contributions to WP:GNG notability, and previous contributions include the candidacy, which you state elsewhere is sufficient for WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a largely unsourced BLP and a vanity page for an unelected candidate. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources in-depth and in-depth and in-depth and mention and mention and in-depth and four paragraphs here and in-depth and in-depth and in-depth. So contrived non-rules like 'candidates only notable if elected' don't apply when the general notability guideline is met.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There has never been a single candidate for any elected office in the entire United States who would fail WP:GNG if "media coverage exists" were all it took to give a candidate permanent inclusion rights just for being a candidate. But unelected-candidate articles have a very disproportionate tendency to get turned into campaign brochures rather than neutral articles, and they don't have the size of potential audience needed to keep them properly compliant with Wikipedia's content policies — which is precisely why WP:NPOL has to restrict politicians' notability to the actual holding of office and not the mere running for it: we simply don't have the resources or the personpower needed to keep them neutral and policy-compliant on top of all the work we have to do just to keep elected officeholders neutral and policy-compliant in the face of partisan editwarring. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This makes no sense, as you stipulate that this topic satisfies WP:GNG. If you want to argue to merge or redirect a notable topic, that is allowed under WP:N.  Even if you were to add "WP:IAR" for the maintainability aspect, that would only argue at most to redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Utah, 2016.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't "stipulate" that the topic satisfies GNG; I explain why it doesn't: coverage of a non-elected candidate for office does not pass GNG except in the rare event that it nationalizes into something far beyond the WP:ROUTINE level of coverage that all candidates always get. Bearcat (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * By invoking WP:ROUTINE, your post is saying that the topic has sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG, but not sufficient coverage to rise above the level of WP:ROUTINE. Otherwise, you could just say that the coverage was insufficient to satisfy GNG.  The part I don't get is why you say that WP:GNG is unlike "media coverage exists".  Unscintillating (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Because GNG is different from "media coverage exists" — media coverage only adds up to GNG when that media coverage has satisfied certain standards of volume and range significantly greater than has been shown here at all. One or two or three pieces of local coverage, of a person who would be expected to garner one or two three pieces of local coverage because local coverage of local elections always exists, is not equivalent to passage of GNG: it's WP:ROUTINE coverage that doesn't add up to a GNG pass. An unelected candidate for office does not pass GNG because a few pieces of local media coverage in her own district exist, because then no unelected candidate would ever fail GNG. A smalltown mayor does not pass GNG just because a few pieces of local media coverage exist, because then no smalltown mayor would ever fail GNG. GNG requires a range and volume of sourcing greater than has been shown here at all. For an unelected candidate for office, GNG is not satisfied until the coverage nationalizes into sources that would not be routinely expected to be covering that election. All media coverage that exists is not an automatic GNG pass just because "media coverage exists": for GNG to become met, the sourcing has to surpass certain standards of range and volume that have not been surpassed here. Bearcat (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unelected candidates for office are not eligible for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and source a credible claim that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article independently of her candidacy, then she has to win the election, not merely run in it, to collect notability from the election itself. Rniterjr (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please formulate your own rationale in your own words, rather than simply copying and pasting somebody else's. In addition to technically being plagiarism (not that I'm actually going to sue you or anything, but still), it makes your contribution look like something less than fully good faith. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 18:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  16:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Neither page, nor sources brought to this discussion, nor my (admittedly brief) searches turn up anything to support notability beyond routing campaign coverage. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic has received WP:GNG-level coverage for being a candidate for US Congress.  While WP:SUSTAINED is a reason to discount WP:GNG notability, this particular topic has received sustained coverage, going back to 1975.  The peak year for television viewing of Miss USA was 1979, with 38 million viewers, ref, and this topic won Miss Idaho USA in 1975.  Winning Miss Idaho meant that there was additional nationwide television coverage during Miss America 1977.  Both of these television shows count as published sources with significant in-depth coverage for WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, she has not received "GNG-level" coverage for being a candidate for US Congress: if her congressional race were getting so much national attention that articles substantially about her were appearing in The New York Times, that would be GNG-level coverage. But if all you can show is one media source about her congressional race, and it's in the local paper whose job it is to cover that congressional race, then that is not GNG-level coverage. And the pageants do not count as "published" metasources for themselves, either. Bearcat (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep changing my vote. I had missed the Miss Idaho thing. Sourcing, writing of  could be better. What else is new?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Neither winning a state-level beauty pageant nor running for congress is enough to establish notability. I find all the "in depth" coverage cited above is just routine coverage of her announcement that she was running for office.  This does not get her past WP:GNG. If she wins the election, or if there was something unusual to happen during the campaign then she would become notable.  But at the present time, this is routine. MB 01:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ROUTINE is an event guideline related to WP:NOTNEWS. See WP:SUSTAINED.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any sustained coverage. Per WP:SUSTAINED, "brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability." A brief burst in 1975/1977 about winning Miss Idaho, and another one 40 years later for an unrelated event are not sustained coverage - just two brief bursts.  In the intervening four decades she was a college student, statistician, businessperson, etc. but did nothing notable in that time. MB 02:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see you withdrawing your claim that there is routine coverage during the election cycle, which is a WP:GNG pass even if not a WP:N pass. Unscintillating (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Where's the evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage? Bearcat (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, you !voted delete, so even without considering the two 1970's TV shows, your !vote is out of step with community norms which is to redirect otherwise unknown candidates, without sufficient coverage for the election, to the article about the election (reference, see Matt Bevin AfD). As for your question, I've already covered that in my !vote.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't covered that. You've simply asserted that the general concept of beauty pageants being televised inherently constitutes its own circular metasourcing for itself, which it doesn't — the existence of a television program does not inherently reify itself into its own metasourced evidence of its own notability, if reliable sources that are independent of the program aren't being brought to support its notability. You haven't shown any evidence of doing the work to show that any "sustained" RS coverage of her actually exists — you've simply asserted that the pageant's existence metasources itself — and not a single source present in the article shows any evidence of anybody else having dug out the kind of sourcing it takes to correctly support notability as a beauty pageant contestant either. The only source in the article dated any earlier than 2016 is an article which entirely fails to even contain a single solitary mention of her name at all, and is present only to source the tangential fact that her predecessor chose to run in a different district — thus failing to be coverage of her in any way, shape or form. And for the record, that fact takes the number of reliable sources here down from two to just one, thus putting it even further away from the GNG finish line. Bearcat (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment A good example of what we mean by candidates getting actual GNG level coverage can be found by looking through the article on Mia Love. The fact that she is an elected member of congress today, should not obscure wise use of some of the sources. The New York Times made substantial mention of her in an article in May 2012. National Review, National Journal, LA Times, Fox News, the Washington Times, The Daily Caller and others also ran articles on her. Here is an article from the Washington Post that mentions her by name in the headline from 2012. If one can dig up this level of coverage for Albarran I think we could maybe consider her passing GNG, but as long as the coverage is localized I see no reason to. And then there is this article from the Wash Po by George Will from September 2012. . Where is similar coverage for Albarran?
 * Comment This article has 2 reliable sources, one from the Deseret News (although since the subject is Mormon, some would even argue against this) and one from the Salt Lake Tribune. The problem is that her district is clearly within their home coverage area, so they have a procative duty to produce something on major party candidates to give their readers a chance at an informed decision. Some papers might neglect such duty, but the Deseret News seeks political neutrality and the SL Tribune does all it can to promote Democrats, but occasionally has to throw them under the bus because they are idiots like the current Democrat candidate for Governor in Utah and do things designed to outrage active Latter-day Saints who are a majority of voters in Utah. To pass GNG we would need at a mimimum 2 articles that do not include the congressional district in play in their local coverage area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument about sources outside the district is not a policy-based argument. You'd be making a better argument to argue to incubate until after the election.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have a standing rule that premature articles about unelected candidates who don't pass WP:NPOL are not draftspaced pending the election, precisely because we can't allow draftspace to turn into exactly the repository of campaign brochures for unelected candidates that NPOL is designed to prevent mainspace from becoming. If she wins the election in November, the article can be undeleted at that time as the notability equation will have changed — but allowing every candidate in every election to have a sandbox draft in place for the duration of the campaign is not a road we want to go down. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I take your point about WP:POLOUTCOMES. But it doesn't change my point that a !vote to incubate, which you note goes against the essay WP:POLOUTCOMES, would be a better argument than one that is not policy-based.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "not policy-based" about an unelected candidate for office having to be based on more than just purely local sources that would be routinely expected to be covering elections taking place in their own coverage area — as I already explained above, we would always have to keep an article about every single candidate in every single election that happens at all if purely local campaign coverage were enough in and of itself to satisfy GNG. Policy statements sometimes lag behind the actual state of consensus — but AFD does have an established consensus in place that because routine local coverage of local elections always exists, and therefore every candidate could always be claimed to pass GNG, unelected candidates for office do have to pass a standard similar to the WP:AUD restrictions on companies and organizations: the coverage does have to explicitly demonstrate them as significantly more notable than the 50,000 other people who are also unelected candidates for office right now, namely by nationalizing well beyond the purely local and routine. Bearcat (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur with the above; I don't see any reason to incubate this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete If I discount the expected (local) coverage of the election, I don't see anything that is left to pass GNG. (Note that POLOUTCOMES exists because otherwise every candidate would inherit notability from the coverage about the election. This is important per WP:NOTDIR - Wikipedia cannot become a directory of election candidates) As for the coverage about the Miss USA - that is firstly a primary source. Secondly, assuming that there was "nationwide coverage" goes against WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED. Who knows, maybe the TV just showed a 5 second glimpse of her among other candidates? Note that she didn't win the competition. This is not convincing enough to be kept. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also the pageant was the event. It cannot be used as a "source" itself. That's a bit too meta. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:52, 1 October 2016 (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.