Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Cramer (US Congressional candidate)


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dan Cramer (US Congressional candidate)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person whose only substantive claim of notability is being an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election, which is not a claim that passes WP:POLITICIAN. In addition, the article relies strongly on primary and unreliable sources — there is a small smattering of coverage in his local daily newspaper, but nothing which demonstrates that he's passed the higher standard necessary to qualify for an article on Wikipedia yet. Local media have a legal and ethical obligation to cover local politics, so the fact that they do so doesn't get unelected candidates over our inclusion bar for politicians if there's no substantive national coverage to demonstrate that they're in any way more notable than most unelected candidates. No prejudice against recreation if he wins the election in November, but right now it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. He may gain notability, but as of now it's a case of WP:TOOSOON Delete Tchaliburton (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The case is actually worse than presented above. Cramer has not even won a nomination for the office. He has to win two elections to become notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Where is there a "rule" that says "win two elections to become notable?" I don't see it. The guidelines state "an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".  Seems to me we have a major party candidate for a federal office.  The primary is in August, the candidate does not appear to be a fringe or novelty candidate.  This isn't the county sheriff's race or a state-level race. A search on https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Dan+Cramer&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=Dan+Cramer+Congress&rls=en produces quite a number of hits in Tennessee news publications, plus some national ones such as Vote Smart, Daily Kos and some others. I say leave it up through the primary, if he loses, then AfD it again and see what happens.  If he wins the promary, then someone will have to go to all the work of recreating it, which is a silly waste of time.  Montanabw (talk)  22:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't create pages for people who may become notable. See WP:TOOSOON. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * John Pack Lambert wasn't talking about a core criterion that all politicians have to pass, requiring that they've been elected to office twice before they can qualify for an article; he was referring to the fact that as of right now Cramer hasn't even won his own party's primary yet, let alone the general election. It takes just one general election win to make a politician notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but Cramer hasn't even won the nomination yet to be his party's candidate in the general election, let alone actually winning the seat he wants to represent. Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Campaign biography of an unelected politician who does not seem to pass GNG from other activities not related to his political campaign. That such pieces should be deleted is a pretty firm consensus at AfD, not that I myself particularly support that approach. Still: that's the consensus. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you don't support that approach, then why vote here to support it? Consensus can change.  If they are the challenger and win the primary, does that change metters?  (If this were a state election, I'd agree, but this is a federal office)  Montanabw (talk)  23:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not unless you are prepared to create articles on everyone who had a major party nomination for congress from 1789 to the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's actually a false equivalency "it's a lot of work" does not equate to "it is a bad idea." That said, why not? Over at wikiproject horse racing, we have about 9,000 articles tagged for the project, basically graded-stakes-winning racehorses dating back to about 1700.  It's doable, at least in theory. Would take a lot of people a lot of time, but frankly, given that many (possibly most) people who would be included probably qualify already under GNG for other reasons (recent examples of people who pass WP:GNG and ran for Congress but lost from my own state:  Monica Lindeen, Kim Gillan).  In addition, all incumbents have articles already, and many of these were failed candidates before hey were successful ones.  So given that we'd only have to do articles on major party nominees who were not already notable for other reasons, we don't have a situation where we'd have to create 435 new biographies every other year. I would agree that people running for state offices, certainly state legislative offices, might not be inherently notable, but running for Congress is a big deal.  Montanabw (talk)  21:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "all incumbants have articles already", shows a clear American bias. There are many articles that we are lacking for Mexico, India and many other countries, especially from a historical perspective. That said, the vast majority of party nominees over history have lost after one election. This is easily 10,000 new articles if not more. In practice, this will probably be mainly created for more recent people, which will lead to wikipedia being over-burdened by recentism more than it already is.
 * It's not Wikipedia's job to grant "equal time" to all candidates in an election — our job is to filter the current news and figure out what people will still need to know five or ten or fifty years from now. A person who actually wins election to and holds a notable office is such a topic — but a person whose only substantive claim of notability is the fact that they ran in an election which they didn't win is just a WP:BLP1E who ceases to be a topic of meaningfully encyclopedic interest the day after the election is over. So if you're relying on their electoral candidacy as the primary claim of notability, then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough for an article on here — to make an unelected candidate qualify for a Wikipedia article, you need to substantively demonstrate that he was already notable enough for an article on Wikipedia for other reasons (e.g. he was already notable as a writer, an athlete, an astronaut, an actor, a holder of a different notable political office, etc.) before he was named as a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree that a failed candidacy could be grounds for a BLP1E situation, but while they are running, they are inherently newsworthy and usually have coverage in multiple independent third party publications. And in this case, it is actually quite rare for a US House candidate to run with no prior experience.  We have thousands of articles on state-level legislators, from whom most candidates for federal office are round.  It is actually a serious issue if, for example, two candidates run in a primary, one with a WP article due to their previous activities and one who cannot be deemed notable for an article because they have yet to be elected.  Odd logic, here.   Montanabw (talk)  22:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We have a rule that notability is not temporary. We do not allow articles to exist for a defined period of time and then consider them for deletion if they fail to meet a future test whose results cannot be predicted today; rather, the article cannot exist at all until you can prove that the person has already become permanently notable rather than temporarily newsy. The test a person has to meet to qualify for an article on here is whether they'll still be a topic of interest to readers two or five or ten or fifty years from now — a test which people pass if they actually hold a notable office, but don't necessarily pass just by running for one they haven't won yet. And we're not the media, either, but an encyclopedia — so whether the challenger in an election is getting "equal time" in comparison to the incumbent is simply not our concern at all. Trust me, plenty of people have won elections over the years without already having Wikipedia articles to rely on — and plenty of people without Wikipedia articles have won election over people who did have them, too. People who can vote in Cramer's election have plenty of resources from which they can make their own decisions about whether to vote for Cramer or an opposing candidate — there's campaign literature, there's local media, and on and so forth — the existence or absence of a Wikipedia article in the meantime is not going to make the difference in whether he gets elected or not, so ensuring that all candidates in an election have "equal coverage" is not a reason to compromise our content and inclusion standards. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. As yet unsuccessful political candidate non-notable for any other reason. Saying "running for Congress is a big deal" is really quite irrelevant. Running for the British Parliament is quite a big deal too, but there are probably in the region of 4,000+ candidates in every general election (about half of which probably have a fighting chance of being elected). Most will lose and never be heard of again. Same in most other countries, although there are probably even more candidates in most of them (since most have more serious political parties than we do). So either we become completely US-centric and restrict our articles on failed candidates to America (a country which, very unusually, only has two serious political parties) or we open the floodgates to creating hundreds of thousands of articles on really quite non-notable individuals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are not nearly that many candidates running for US federal offices, we only have 435 seats in the house, after all. But in all honesty, I don't see this as a problem, people have to want to create an article, the don't HAVE to do so. Frankly, if they have articles on obscure Sri Lankan cricket players who played a single season, then why not have articles on Sri Lankan political candidates?  Probably more cricket players than candidates, methinks...  Montanabw (talk)  22:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, but it's not really a valid argument to say that we should make a special case for America because there are fewer candidates. That's clearly pro-US bias. Either all unsuccessful candidates are notable or none are. I think there's a bit of a difference between playing a sport at the highest professional level and taking part in a single election, especially if you have no credible chance of winning. Although I would agree that sportspeople are over-represented. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2014 (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.