Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damian Kidd


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Damian Kidd
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:Politician. Political candidate who was never elected. Zigzig20s (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What requirement is there that a candidate hold office for notability? Maybe you could be specific about how you are reading GNG? He is widely covered in the press and has received national attention. This is a SNOW issue, as I see it. Bangabandhu (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)\
 * In fairness, the entry was created by someone else though I added the bulk of the text.
 * I see you've now returned to add WP:Politician to WP:GNG without answering the question I posed. What about either of those policies leads you to believe the subject is not notable? As I read it, both confirm his notability. The third point of WP:Pol references standard notability requirements. Kidd is abudantly notable -the dozens of references on Google News leave no doubt. Again, WP:SNOW. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete Unelected candidates for political office do not meet the criteria set out in WP:Politician and are usually deleted, unless the subject meets WP:GNG before their campaign WP:POLOUTCOMES. The existing consensus is that races for public office may be notable, (e.g. United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014 ) and that unelected candidates fall under WP:ONEEVENT. --Enos733 (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a helpful comment, but if you check the links, you'll see he's received coverage before he ran for office. Could you share more about the emerging consensus? It wouldn't make much sense to include coverage of the Republican Primary in Utah's Third District without a wikilink to the candidate's page, would it? This is a national level race.Bangabandhu (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, could you clarify how you read WP:POLOUTCOMES to suggest deletion? It says that pages of national level candidates are deleted after their campaign is unsuccessful. Nothing says implicitly or explicitly that it should be removed before. Bangabandhu (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that WP:POLOUTCOMES needs some updating based on the past few years of developed consensus. It is the usual outcome now that "candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted" (striking the leading word losing). The reason for this development is that races for political office fit under WP:ONEEVENT, and that in general, since notability is not temporary, the candidates themselves do not become notable outside of the campaign (event). In addition, for many candidates, the wiki page is sourced to primary sourced material (including campaign websites). The general guidance is that candidates may "still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." --Enos733 (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, POLOUTCOMES does not say that national-level candidates are deleted only after the election results roll in and they've lost. It doesn't matter whether the election is in the past, the present or the future — if a person has not already held a political office that clears NPOL, then they don't get an article because candidate. A non-winning candidate might still clear a notability guideline for some other reason, such as already having held another notable office (e.g. having lost the presidency is not going to get Hillary Clinton deleted, because she has been the First Lady and a senator and a cabinet official) or having preexisting notability in another career (e.g. Al Franken was already notable as a writer and comedian, so his eligibility for an article did not have to wait until he won his senate seat) — but a person who can make no claim of preexisting notability is not eligible for a Wikipedia article because of the candidacy per se. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong delete This is basically a campaign brouchure for Kidd. He is a one-issue candidate for the party nomination for the US house. If he gets elected to the US house he will be notable, if he does not he almost certainly will not be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What leads you to believe he is a single issue candidate? I see many different issues in the entry, from his stance on abortion to his position on DC self determination. If you're concerned that its too self-promoting, why not edit it to include a more balanced view? I don't understand how this "consensus" is in the best interest of Wikipedia's mission or its reader's interest, and question whether it is widely accepted.Bangabandhu (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Strong keep Kidd is an important figure in an important race. He has received attention far outside of his home district - please see the references from DCist, Politico and other national publications. There is room for improvement in his entry and I hope other editors will make those changes rather than deleting. WP:NPOL does not instruct to delete entries before an election, only after, if a candidate is unsuccessful. I am confused why that is not applied in this case. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as we base these articles by WP:POLITICIAN and the fact he hasn't held office yet, makes it unconvincing. SwisterTwister   talk  19:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing in WP:POL says that holding office is a requirement, it just says that ones candidacy alone is not a qualification. He's received national attention for his positions.Bangabandhu (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Serves as nothing more than a campaign advertisement for a non-notable person. AusLondonder (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that? Every sentence is referenced to reliable, impartial sources.Bangabandhu (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. As yet unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles because candidate, in and of itself — a non-winning candidate might have preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy (e.g. already having held another notable office, or already having passed our notability standards in another career), but does not pass WP:NPOL until they win the election. Nothing stated or sourced here, however, demonstrates that he's notable for anything more than being a future candidate. Our role is not to be a repository of campaign brochures for every candidate in every election. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right that as soon as you become a candidate, you don't automatically qualify for a Wikipedia page. But if you do become a candidate, and you do gain national attention, and you do make important, noteworthy stances, then you do reach notability. In this instance - and many others - editors are misinterpreting what it means to have a presumption of notability. Just because someone wins office or announces their candidacy, there is no presumption of notability. But there is no presumption of non-notability, either. Look at the cites here. He's got attention around the country. He's been widely quoted. He's been an activist before he was a candidate. If he were, say, a local activist on environmental issues there wouldn't be nearly this scrutiny. But its applied to Kidd because of concerns that he might be notable only because he's a candidate - which is not the case. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Of all the sources in the article, just two are non-local to the district where he's running — one of the two is a Gothamist-network blog, which is a source that would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after GNG has already been fully covered off but cannot be a bringer of GNG, and neither of them are about Kidd: they're both about Chaffetz, and just briefly namecheck Kidd as a provider of soundbite at the very end. A national officeholder's primary challenger would be routinely expected to occasionally get namechecked in coverage of the officeholder, so that is not substantive coverage of the type it would take to actually make him more notable than the norm, because he isn't the subject of that "national coverage". If you want to make a non-winning candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article on the grounds that "media coverage exists", what you need to do is show that the volume of coverage is approaching Christine O'Donnell levels — this isn't just failing to be in the distant exurbs of enough, it's failing to be even in the same time zone as enough. Bearcat (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:NPOLITICIAN.  Dr Strauss   talk  12:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you explain that more? I note that you added a unreferenced tag to the article, which doesn't make much sense, as there are lots of sources. Maybe you could elaborate? Thanks. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and basic WP:GNG as subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Article's sources do not meet all 3 requirement. Current sources:
 * 1, 2 and 8 - passing mention in article - not significant
 * 3, 6 and 7 - primary source directly from Kidd - not independent
 * 4 and 5 - announcement of possible candidacy- full of quotes from Kidd - more PR about candidacy - not independent.
 * G searches and HighBeam provided nothing to help establish notability.  CBS 527 Talk 03:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the most helpful, thoughful comment in this thread and ought to be a model for contributions to AFD discussion. You're right that sourcing could be stronger. One important consideration is that more coverage is coming daily and that if it's deleted all this work will need to be recreated. I initially thought this was a SNOW issue, but understanding now the scrutiny for these types of articles, I can see why it's a topic of debate. Here are a couple recently created sources. Yes, none is a full on profile of Kidd, but notability doesn't require a dedicated profile, does it? I think the totality of the articles about him and his candidacy - as well as the trajectory of the coverage - should give us reassurance. Here are some recent, additional searches - not sure if they turned up in Highbeam.
 * Published yesterday about this role in DC and Utah politics
 * More recent coverage
 * Bangabandhu (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you are right that he will be getting better coverage in the future though right now it's WP:TOOSOON. If this article is deleted, it can be accessed through WP:REFUND if some one is is interested in expanding the article. You are correct that the source don't need to be about him but it would need to have in depth coverage of him. The 2 articles cited above just have a passing mention of him as a candidate running against Chaffetz. These sources are independent and reliable and could be used to establish his position on this issue. Unfortunately, they do not provide the significant coverage needed to establish notability.  CBS 527 Talk 15:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, I'd never seen REFUND before. Still, it seems like the "grace period" mentioned elsewhere could be extended in this instance. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:35, 16 February 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.