Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell (Second nomination)


 * 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Diane Farrell
Previously deleted at Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell, comments along the lines of "come back if she's elected". She wasn't. This is not the same content (so not a G4 speedy), but there is still no claim to notability other than an unsuccessful candidacy in an election. Per WP:BIO we keep successful candidates, not failed ones. Debate is currently going on in three separate places, so hopefully we can collect it all here. Guy 20:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - this particular race has been picked up by news sources including US News and World Report and several others, which I feel qualifies as "significant press coverage" per the WP:BIO guidelines. Crystallina 21:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Farrell is challenging Shay,a moderate to liberal leaning long term incumbent from a North east state. This canadate is being watched closely for signs of a change of wind for the presidental election in '06. FloNight 21:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Crystallina and being a competitive candidate for the district's House seat. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 21:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's 30 more days till the election. If she loses then, delete then. The race has had significant coverage from well beyond the district.Noroton 22:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to all participants: is attempting to disrupt this AfD. (See diff.) Also, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Diane_Farrell and Deletion review/Log/2006 October 8, where further arguments for and against this article's recreation have taken place. --Aaron 22:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Attempting to disrupt this AfD? Not hardly. It just makes no sense to have multiple simultaneous votes on the status of this article. Do you agree or disagree with that?--Francisx 23:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If an admin opens a new AfD, while specifically noting that "Debate is currently going on in three separate places, so hopefully we can collect it all here," I'm going to go with the admin. His action has rendered the DRV moot. As for pulling AfD tags off articles, you can get blocked for that sort of thing. There's even templates about it (e.g. drmafd4). --Aaron 23:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't see the note, nor did I know that the person who added the AFD tag was an admin. As WP is supposed to be friendly to newbies, I expect that you'll pardon my oversight. Thanks!--Francisx 23:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Aw, come on, FrancisX, you've been editing for more than a year! (You're newer than me, I guess, but still...) --Aaron 00:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then why did you label me a vandal [|here]? In my not-quite-a-year of editing (your math is off), did you notice a long, striking pattern of vandalism? You can't have it both ways. Am I an experienced user who should know better or a disruptor?--Francisx 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I used that tag because (a) as a courtesy to the admins because it provides them with quick links to relevant pages (while not actually labeling anyone as a "vandal" in the text of the page) and (b) because removal of AfD tags is considered vandalism by Wikipedia policy (see "avoidant vandalism" on Vandalism; age of account and number of edits has nothing to do with it. --Aaron 00:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Where did "newbie" come from? Your contribs show you've been on Wiki since Dec 05, you uploaded Farrell's image, and you've been active on many political articles.  Sorry, couldn't help but notice that, since you accused me of having a pony in this race because I oppose admins circumventing community consensus on IRC chat. Sandy 00:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, chronologically I may not be a newbie, but I haven't exactly been immersed in administrative or backroom protocol either. I've made a relatively small number of edits, almost all of whom have been superficial and minor.--Francisx 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

*Delete for failing WP:BIO and WP:C&E. While technically only a proposal, failure to adhere to WP:C&E has already been used as a criterion to delete the articles of other legitimate House candidates. I don't see where "Well, this race is too important" is a particularly compelling argument. The entire point of WP:C&E was to stop this sort of "some animals are more important than others" creation of articles for people who haven't even won election yet. --Aaron 22:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to abstain due to SandyGeorgia's creation of Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006, for which multiple people ought to be awarding her barnstars. --Aaron 18:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad you noticed: that's the work that should have been done to begin with.  I now know more about both candidates than I ever wanted to know about either of them.  Sometimes it's just easier to do it yourself, I guess.  Nonetheless, process should have been followed by those who wanted the article:  why did *I* have to be the one to write, reference and clean up all those articles?   As for process, I wonder if the article will really  be deleted is she loses? These guidelines need to be examined:  Farrell now has an article, while two other candidates in the same election who haven't achieved notability don't, and one was AfD'd. There is still nothing notable in Farrell's own article, which can't be covered in the election article, so I don't really understand why we bother with process, guidelines, AfDs, and so on.  IRC chat must be the way to go!  Sandy 18:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Based on C& E, a proposed guideline, "Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written." Farrell is notable enough for an article. FloNight 00:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Aaron. Keep vote arguments appear to be rooted in fallacious "media coverage = encyclopedic notability" assumption. Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) is not a news report database. Bwithh 23:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:C&E, and an attempt to bypass Wiki guidelines will set a bad precedent.  Sandy 23:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I week ago, the article was an entirely unsourced entry, based only on the candidate's own website, failing to establish notability per any reliable sources.  During the last week, and after prodding with  tags, the article has now been (mostly) sourced to reliable sources, which are now available due to increased media attention to the election. I've written the election article which shoulda/coulda been written to provide coverage during the time when the candidate did not meet notability per WP:BIO.   Sandy 16:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * According to WP:BIO:
 * "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them."
 * Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.
 * Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
 * According to WP:C&E:
 * "Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written."
 * Random candidates for House seats do not meet such criteria. That Farrell is especially competitive in this particular election (one in which the incumbent has held the seat for what will soon be 20 years) has led to national-level news coverage. This makes her qualify under WP:BIO standards listed above. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
 * According to WP:C&E:
 * "Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written."
 * Random candidates for House seats do not meet such criteria. That Farrell is especially competitive in this particular election (one in which the incumbent has held the seat for what will soon be 20 years) has led to national-level news coverage. This makes her qualify under WP:BIO standards listed above. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * According to WP:C&E:
 * "Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written."
 * Random candidates for House seats do not meet such criteria. That Farrell is especially competitive in this particular election (one in which the incumbent has held the seat for what will soon be 20 years) has led to national-level news coverage. This makes her qualify under WP:BIO standards listed above. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written."
 * Random candidates for House seats do not meet such criteria. That Farrell is especially competitive in this particular election (one in which the incumbent has held the seat for what will soon be 20 years) has led to national-level news coverage. This makes her qualify under WP:BIO standards listed above. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Random candidates for House seats do not meet such criteria. That Farrell is especially competitive in this particular election (one in which the incumbent has held the seat for what will soon be 20 years) has led to national-level news coverage. This makes her qualify under WP:BIO standards listed above. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep 497 current news articles listed in Google News., many of which are national (US News & World Report, Washington Post, LA Times) and even international (The Guardian). This is a top 10-race, Farrell has been previously been elected to office, and this is clearly a notable person. Moreover WP:C&E are only proposed guidelines, and are not enforceable.--Francisx 23:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think people are missing the point. She gets lots of local coverage, apparently, which is often sufficient for inclusion. But the fact she's repeatedly been on the front of the NY Times, one of the 1) most highly circulated newspapers on Earth; 2) distributed globally, and at the least available in virtually every corner of english speaking North America; 3) merits her article to stay. Lets not also forget that the NY metro region is one of the most populated areas of the entire country/world. Being notable in the New York area means you're due for a Wikipedia entry, simple due to volume of population: simple fact. Or, as they say, if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere... · XP  · 23:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What, so anyone of local interest in New York is automatically of global importance? Guy 08:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wellll...Meh. (and I live in Manhattan). this is about CT anyway - that extra piece of drivetime between Boston and NYC. Bwithh 00:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and anything in Connecticut that the good gray Times actually bothers to cover is notable for that alone.:-> Septentrionalis 01:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per nom --Tbeatty 01:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Duplicate vote struck. Septentrionalis 01:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Tbeatty 01:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would have no objection to merging this article, and much of Chris Shays, into the (not yet existent) Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006. But I do not see how deleting the information helps the encyclopedia or that article. WP:C&E is a guideline (or, rather, will be one.) It's good general practice, but guideline is right to say guidelines "are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Septentrionalis 01:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. At least through the election. -- DS1953 <sup style="color:green;">talk 02:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, WP:C&E is a guideline, and in this case it's both reasonable and germaine. Once we have an article for the district election this candidate has entered, only then will it be clear whether we need an article for the candidate herself. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 02:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This elevates the proceedure recommended by the guideline over its purpose: to ensure that articles on candidates have enough credible information to be an article. Well, an article exists; no delete voice has yet questioned the information, so we seem to be past that hurdle already. Septentrionalis 02:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There's not much of substance in the article, her own website was the source for most of the information there (inappropriately so), and her notability appears to all stem from articles about Shays. If she loses the election, she's still a schoolteacher turned small-town mayor.  Sandy 02:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I added a few links that could be used as reliable sources for the article text. This is a candidate for a national political office and is backed by one of the two major political parties. I found multiple articles discussing Farrell in a brief Google news search. The article has the potential for expansion. Assuming that the article can be sourced to the multiple news sources that are out there (I have no reason to assume that it cannot), it will be The article is verifiable in reliable sources and neutral. Notability "standards" are POV and subjective; our policies are best served by keeping the verifiable portion of this article. &middot; j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 04:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Jerskyo. J o r c o g a  04:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Simões and Jerskyo. - Lex 04:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep election is only a month away and there is no clear leader in this election race. I added about 6 sources to fix V issues.Arbusto 05:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You cannot speedy keep if there are delete advocates. Guy 08:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: The election is rated as a toss up. Very clear people might be looking for a wiki article on her. Arbusto 05:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Keep and close this afd now. She came within 4 points of beating Shays last election. This time she has a lot more funding, supports, majoyr politicians stumping for her, and 500 google news hits. List this for afd on November 8th.Arbusto 05:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jerskyo, and per Simões' comment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Competitive candidates for U.S. house seats meet any reasonable standard of notability. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No they don't. Elected ones do, though. Guy 08:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * COMMENT Per WP:C&E, Connecticut 4th Congressional District Election, 2006 is now in place. All of Farrell's information can be merged to there, most of it is already there, and there is no need to go against the C&E guidelines by maintaining a separate article for a candidate who hasn't achieved notability outside of the election.  Sandy 08:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * COMMENT - C&E is not a guideline, so it has no place in this debate. - Lex 14:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the amount of coverage typically garnered by a competitive house candidate is significant, as in this case. We should definitely use that coverage to include biographical information on those candidates. Very few such candidates will fail WP:BIO, since they are "major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage." Which isn't to say that articles like this couldn't be merged, but that isn't particularly necessary in this case, and certainly discussing it here would cloud the issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Guy (et al), are you saying that despite the widespread media coverage in multiple reliable sources, this political candidate is inherently non-notable beecause she is merely a political candidate (regardless of the competitiveness of the race, the profile of the candidates, etc.)? I don't mean to antagonize or mischaracterize your position, and I'm certainly assuming good faith here (I think we're all motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia).  I just want to make sure I understand your position. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 16:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Major party candidate in a closely watched house race. Definitely of interest, WP:BIO guidelines or no guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * UPDATE. All of the info from Farrell's article is now in the election article.  Per WP:C&E, "Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written."  There is nothing else notable to say about Diane Farrell that isn't in the election article.  Sandy 09:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I merely wanted to point out that WP:C&E is a proposed policy/guideline only. &middot; j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 13:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The C&E guideline has been modified to comply with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS so that no article is deleted because an election article was not started. FloNight 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Apples-oranges. Farrell's article was deleted via community consensus on AfD regarding notability, and recreated outside of a DRV or establishment of notability, and outside of the guidelines in place at the time.  When this discussion started, the article was entirely sourced to her own website (and two other sources which failed verification), and notability had not been established.  This incident has shown that if an editor wants to circumvent guidelines and community consensus, IRC is the path.  Sandy 18:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not all of us use IRC - I don't. I got to this discussion page from the main AfD listing and dug up a news source to support my position. I'm not trying to circumvent any guidelines or consensus; I can't speak for the rest of the people here but I'd imagine many of them feel the same. Crystallina 21:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I normally vote to remove these candidate pages, but in certain cases (famously Ned Lamont), challengers are notable due to the interest spurred by their race. This appears to be the case here. Eusebeus 09:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sjakkalle Knobunc 15:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Farrell is more notable and in a closer ace then Diana Irey, and we should keep Irey until at least after the election. Arbusto 17:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per national coverage of her candidacy cited above. Andrew Levine 17:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Simões' interpretation of WP:BIO. Ourai  т с 22:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete wiki as the encyclopedia should not serve as an information board about upcoming elections. Tulkolahten 22:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Question as the current total currently stands (by my quick tabulation) at 21 to keep and 6 to delete, has it been established that there exists no community consensus to delete Diane Farrell? I'm not up on the procedure. --Francisx 22:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Articles for deletion, articles are listed for five days. An administrator can cut this short, but normally won't if both sides are well-represented, even if the vote is a bit lopsided after a couple of days.   John Broughton  |  Talk 16:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep For now, if she does not win then deletion may be reasonable. We have only a month before the election, so waiting to see what happens is not unreasonable. JoshuaZ 22:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the comments made above, meets WP:BIO guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 23:40, 9 October 2006
 * Keep She may now win (post-Foley scandal), but the coverage of her is extensive as a notable bellwether in the '06 US House elections. Xoloz 23:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006. Morton devonshire 02:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006. --Interiot 07:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There's obvious interest in her. She's effectively tied with Shays, and by any rational measure should have an entry. Wikipedia is not paper. --The Cunctator 12:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Considerable media coverage for a local political figure (First Selectwoman of Westport, reportedly equivalent to Mayor) satisfies WP:BIO. Existence of Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006 also helps with WP:C&E. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 12:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep People look to Wikipedia for information. It doesn't make any sense to withhold information that may be widely sought, simply because an arbitrary concept of the purity of the project must be maintained.  The fact is, she has become a highly newsworthy figure, and therefore of interest to a not insignificant number of Wikipedia readers.  It is not worth worrying about the extra electrons necessary to keep this page open, nor is it worth using up neurons worrying that a page might exist on Wikipedia that is marginally ambiguous about whether it merits inclusion. Malangali 14:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Any one who follows politics knows that this is a major race. This, in turn, has led to a lot of press, and, please note in WP:BIO that one positive factor is: "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage".  As of this writing, she gets 429 news.google hits, and " 'Diane Farrell' + candidate" gets over 100,000 google hits.  Further, that she lost last time by only 4% shows that she is a significant figure in her district (as well has holding previous elected office).  -- Sholom 15:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Candidate in notable and widely watched race. Gamaliel 22:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Removing well-sourced, verifiable content about such a figure simply because she is not elected is IPOV -- Incumbant's POV, and as such, violates WP:NPOV. We really need to thoroughly re-examine this whole POV-ish idea of "notability". -- Zantastik  talk  23:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, hundreds of LexisNexis hits and hundreds of thousands of Google hits. RFerreira 00:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. She's the Democratic nominee in one of the closest and most watched House of Representative races in the county - not exactly an irrelevant person.  John Broughton  |  Talk 12:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, major party nominee in a very competitive race--Tdl1060 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, being on the ballot as a major-party candidate is a higher bar than Wiki notability, we can always delete the article in 10 years or so if she never goes anywhere Eliot 20:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment For that matter, how ridiculous is it to have an article about the Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006 but claim that the candidates on the ballot aren't notable? Eliot 20:54, 11 October 2006 (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.