Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Cameron (lawyer)


 * 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 no consensus. Trending to keep after improvements, though.  Sandstein  13:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Cameron (lawyer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

David Cameron, though he has won a two-person, low turnout, Republican primary for Attorney General of Kentucky, is clearly non-notable. The article sources only to material published by his new employer law firm, and also to Ballotpedia, which in turn sources back to the same employer-generated material. Aside from his candidacy, I can see nothing of note in the article. Activist (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Discussion page was created without the afd2 template. Fixed now.  As for the subject at hand, I'd lean strongly delete based on what's in the article at the moment, but he's gotten a bit more coverage due to an endorsement from Mr. Trump here, for example. --Finngall talk  23:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that, Finngall. I was unaware of the endorsement until shortly after I'd made the AfD recommendation. That doesn't change anything. A long and well-sourced article about Steve Watkins who was endorsed by Trump, though it contained significant, well-sourced behavioral and credibility problem issues about the congressional candidate, was deleted last year by a British editor who probably wouldn't know North Carolina from North Dakota. The removal may have contributed to Watkins' election as editors and reporters from the scores of small-town papers in that mostly rural, vast district look to Wikipedia for info. Two regional papers in Topeka and Lawrence published much of that negative info, and their readers voted heavily against Watkins, but they're not commonly read outside those two big cities. Roy Moore was endorsed by Trump, but of course, he had vastly more qualifications for the seat he sought. Activist (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I responded thusly to a posting by the Cameron article's creator, USER:Gemofadeal, on my Talk page, answering the subject article's creator: "Wikipedia has had a long-standing policy, with which I have long personally disagreed volubly, that mere winning of a primary does not convey notability. I lost those arguments to overwhelming consensus. I don't make the rules. If Cameron wins the election, an article about him will be warranted, but unless something remarkable happens to him between now and then, I expect it will be pretty thin gruel. I'll look at the election article on Wikipedia but this doesn't expect it will change anything. I don't know what's happening in KY, but the 'D's hugely outpolled the 'R's in the contested primaries. Their governor, Bevin, may have left a bad taste in the public's mouth, though there were even worse candidates on the 'R' ticket, such as Dan Johnson (Kentucky politician) who was also elected in 2016. The Democratic gubernatorial and other statewide candidates polled about 150,000 more total votes than the Republicans in the contested primaries. Check the numbers, and this story: https://www.whas11.com/article/news/politics/bevin-holcomb-seats-could-switch-parties-in-the-upcoming-election-and-in-2020-says-national-journal/417-e52eb030-9469-4ee7-8899-a6a4e6c6fa90 So, following policy, no article unless Cameron wins, and if he doesn't perhaps no article ever unless something remarkable happens to him." Activist (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did look at the polls, as I was urged by "Gem", but found some marked anomalies and they left me unpersuaded as to their utility. Activist (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Change to keep based on E.M.Gregory's improvements. Just winning the primary doesn't confer notability by itself, but he clearly passes WP:GNG.  --Finngall talk  18:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability"... and the coverage we have ("he's running for office", "he has an endorsement") is basically the rote for an unelected candidate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get articles just for being candidates in elections they have not won — a person has to win the election and thereby hold the office to qualify for a Wikipedia article, not just be a candidate. But this makes absolutely no credible case that he had preexisting notability for other reasons, and the sourcing isn't getting him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL either: it's based 2/3 on primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the only references that are reliable sources are the purely WP:ROUTINE pieces of campaign coverage that every candidate in every election can always show, not evidence that he's somehow a special case of significantly greater notability than most other unelected candidates. Wikipedia is not a free repository of campaign brochures for aspiring officeholders: we keep articles about people who hold notable political offices, not everybody who ever ran for one. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - This just about as clear cut as it gets. As NatGertler noted above, this obviously fails WP:POLITICIAN. This article was created shortly after Cameron received the nomination as part of the campaign, and it reads as such. --Avidohioan (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that article now does have reliable, SECONDARY sourcing of his career before this campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:HEY I have upgraded the page with coverage like Washington Post: "Cameron, a young, black Republican who could rise fast in national GOP circles.". Coverage of his childhood, education background and career - much of it pre- candidacy and some of it national has been added.  Coverage of his race for AG in national sources has been added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Unnamed people speculating about a candidate's potential to "rise fast" in the future is not a notability claim for a person who hasn't already risen. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete if Cameron wins the election he will be notable, until then he is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As per WP:NPOL "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. ".E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That bar is still not passed just because a couple of new hits of slightly more than just local coverage, still fundamentally hemming him into a purely WP:BLP1E context, exists. For an unelected candidate to be exempted from NPOL because media coverage, that media coverage has to literally explode to Christine O'Donnell proportions — even though strictly speaking she's a WP:BLP1E while Chris Coons (the guy she lost to) is an incumbent US Senator who's been in office for almost ten years now, their articles are equal in length and O'Donnell outsources Coons by about 2.5 times as many distinct footnotes, because O'Donnell generated such a massive national and international firestorm of coverage that she's still to this day about a million times more world-famous than Coons is. That's the bar that a candidate has to clear to become special enough to get an article just for being a candidate: not just "hey, look, one piece exists in a more-than-local newspaper too, booya!", but "so very bloody much media coverage exists in so many more than local sources that even if he loses the election it's reasonable to expect that he'll still be a household name in 2029 anyway". Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * KEEP, Cameron was just endorsed by the President, which I updated, not may Americans can say that for either party in their lifetime! With regards to Ballotpedia..they have their own independent verification process. You discontent winning the nomination of a major political party for a statewide office. The polling shows he is AHEAD in the race (see KY AG Race on Wiki) and could break the long streak of one party rule by the Democrats since 1948. Also the Wikipedia policy should at a minimum allow for a political nominee of either major party during the election cycle to be here if their opponent is here. Otherwise it gives an unfair advantage as many people search to initially learn about candidates on Wikipedia. At worst it is up for a few months...many on this cite have a short term outlook, this site will be around for years and needs a longer term focus in my opinion. Thank you.Gemofadeal (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment' while I'm wavering on my delete !vote in the face of EMG's eager WP:HEY effort, I have to say that this argument is unconvincing. You want us to keep on the basis of things he could do, like become AG and break a party line, but those aren't things that he actually has done. We are almost all born with potential to do things. Yes, he's made some progress in trying to get the job, but that's not having the job. And it's not Wikipedia's job to even up the election, and even if it were, giving preferential treatment to candidates from the "major parties" is not the way of doing that. And you're asking us to think of the "longer term focus" while your promoting inclusion of an article in which all interest could be gone in 5 months. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion reminds me strongly of Articles for deletion/Conor Lamb. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * An endorsement from somebody else is not a notability criterion for an as yet unelected political candidate in and of itself: the notability test for politicians is winning the election and thereby holding the office, not just being a candidate. It is also not our job to give "equal time" to every candidate in an election, either — we are not a news site whose job it is to cover every single person who happens to show up in the current news cycle; we are an encyclopedia whose job it is to cover people who have already achieved something that will make them still notable ten years from now, and not to promote people who merely aspire to accomplish that in the future. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * KEEP, Cameron has currently got a good chance of being elected the next Attorney General of Kentucky, which makes him notable enough for an entry imho. –Arkansawyer2509 (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * People's WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions about a candidate's prospects of winning a future election are not a notability claim for a political candidate. People get articles on here by winning the election and thereby holding office, not by being candidates. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * KEEP Per Gemofadeal (talk) satisfy. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Does not pass WP:NPOL. but does pass WP:GNG per WP:RSs This article has been greatly expanded and sourced since AfD. WP:HEY Lightburst (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I hope I'm not construed as neither being hypercritical or unappreciative, but the "Keeps" on this article are very light on relevant experience, either being almost entirely from editors who are quite new, are not experienced with Wikipedia policy regarding elections or ditto, AfDs. The creator knows a lot about historic races for South Dakota Attorneys General but has contributed briefly and almost on no other subject and when editing calls up individuals with personal knowledge of the articles' subject relying on that instead of respecting the need for RSS. Others have almost no experience at all with articles about the U.S. I see that one had contributed substantially to recent AfD discussions, and I respect that. But the voices of experience here are perhaps unanimous coming to the judgment to delete, based on considerable experience with both U.S. elections and conformity with Wikipedia policies regarding articles about candidates who have never been elected (one exception is an editor with only six weeks or so experience briefly editing one article of an elected official if South Korean judges are actually elected, as they are in many cases in the U.S.) I refer again to the Steve Watkins (congressional candidate) article which was deleted despite considerable biographical material and a Trump endorsement. (Now that he won a narrow victory, the article with that name still is about a long-retired baseball player who pitched for less than a season, and I need to see if I can get the time to fix that.) Activist (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ooops!!! I missed looking at User Finngall's experience. He's loaded with it, but the exception doesn't prove the rule. Activist (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, now, I suppose I should be insulted. Unless, of course, User:Activist intended his remarks to be read as a satire of policy based AfD discussions.  The thing is,  User:Activist has participated in 9 AfD discussions, while I have participated in, well, dunnamany, but Activist is welcome to count them .  E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be a double "oops." I've been doing a number of things at once, some very distracting such as major and immediate focus on my physical living situation. I scratched down a few editor names on the back of an envelope, while I was answering the phone and emails, and missed yours as well. I've read your edits for a very long time and have always appreciated them. Mea maxima culpa! Activist (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I read through all the citations in the article and left comments on the Talk page. I'll take a look at the Guardian coverage which was posted after I'd edited the article. I left the first few sentences here as comments on the article's Talk page: I deleted one of two identical citations plus others that only provided cumulative info. Those which duplicated The citations from the Washington Post of 7/30, WKYT, Lexington Herald-Leader and WCLU all just reiterate the Trump tweet without adding any additional significant information. I'd prefer keeping the Herald-Leader cite but any three could certainly be eliminated with little to no loss of notable content. Much of the remaining article comes directly from company promotional material from the two firms where he worked, essentially fluff, hardly RSS. More like KISS. "Things are seldom as they seem: Skim milk masquerades as cream."(Gilbert and Sullivan-HMS Pinafore) Activist (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Wonkette doesn't much like the GOP, so she's following this campaign pretty closely 33-year-old Republican attorney general candidate Daniel Cameron got salty with his 67-year-old Democratic rival, saying, "Greg Stumbo is like the milk you have in the carton at the back of your refrigerator. This carton has been spoiling for 30 years, and folks, it smells terrible!" Get this guy a Netflix special, STAT!. American Thinker doesn't much like Democrats, so it's following closely too There is a reasonable expectation that from now on the GOP will recruit more women and minorities who agree with the party’s views on racial and gender issues, so their number will eventually increase. A recent example includes the Kentucky Republican attorney general candidate, Daniel Cameron (an African-American and former Mitch McConnell staffer), who praised Trump in the midst of the fallout over the president’s comments directed at Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings and Baltimore that have been condemned as racist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Both are interesting comments and thanks for including them. The 20th Century GOP has always had an allegiance to "outliers," i.e., Booker T. vs. W.E.B. DuBois, Phyllis Schlafly vs. Germaine Greer, and perhaps most importantly Clarence Thomas vs. Thurgood Marshall, Sr. Exceptions v. rules. Activist (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, WP:SIGCOV, and as the probable leader in the race; this should not be construed as an endorsement of his candidacy. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I think there are enough good sources to say that Cameron easily clears WP:GNG. He's had coverage in The Guardian (misspelled, of course), the Washington Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post. And a lot of very substantial and detailed coverage in the regional press. Railfan23 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So, I looked at the Guardian mention. It's more bare-bones, the two consecutive Trump tweets reiterated, but the only added info is the irony/hypocrisy/whatever, of Trump criticizing Cummings' constituency. As usual, there's no logic there, as I've spent time in north-central Kentucky and southeast Kentucky, and the latter in particular, is hardly a cut above the worst in Baltimore, though it's more poor-white rather than poor-black, and places like Elliot county could be seen as the meth capital of the universe. Trump's tweet also has Cameron as "Strong on immigration." That's hardly a major issue in Kentucky which has a very different set of critical/relevant circumstances. In one of the polls that were quoted in the article, in the Herald-Leader, I think, I looked at the raw data from which the article had drawn. Trump had 100% support on all questions from the entire Asian demographic which was polled. There were 741 respondents of all races surveyed. However if that one "Asian" had been out of town that week, there would have been zero to count. This fails on GNG, I believe: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] (A widespread dissemination of those two tweets provide no variance at all...they're completely redundant. What we're looking at in fact, is republication of those same two joined tweets, over and over. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. (And the single source is in fact Trump's brief paired sputter. The coverage is far more focused on Trump's few peculiar lines than it is on Cameron's candidacy, which is simply an artifact.) As far as the two law firms providing RSS for a great deal of the initial edits, they don't meet: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject (in this case, Cameron's own campaign website) or someone affiliated with it. (the two law firms) For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4] It couldn't be clearer that what we're looking fails GNG. Lastly, when I went back and looked at all the edits, I discovered that an AfD template had been attached to the article shortly after it was created, and just as quickly, sans explanation, removed by another editor. When I added the AfD template not long afterward, I had been unaware of the deletion which had left no trace. Activist (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The previous AFD tag was not "sans explanation, removed" - in the edit comment for the change, it says "Rv AfD tag placed without followup -- see WP:AFDHOWTO" - Rv is short for "revert", and it's saying that the tagging lacked followup - that someone placed the tag without starting an AfD discussion, like this one here. That's required for a proper AfD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification and correction. Activist (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2019 (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.