Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hal Heiner


 * 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 redirect to Kentucky_gubernatorial_election,_2015. There are two "keep" votes here. One was lodged before his primary loss and is therefore moot. The other makes some claims to his passing GNG but doesn't go much beyond that. On the other hand, the "Redirect" votes make a good policy-based argument in my mind why this should be redirected rather than deleted; so that our readers will get some useful information if they type this search term in. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hal Heiner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of the article fails WP:POLITICIAN. He was an unelected candidate for Kentucky Governor in 2015. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  00:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not voting at this point, but I think Heiner's terms in office in the Louisville Metro Council should be reviewed by all to see if General Notability is met from that. Also, it isn't known yet if he is unelected, since the gubernatorial primaries are on Tuesday, May 19.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 01:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep He is a candidate for the governor's job but the election is yet to come. Nevertheless, he received the endorsement of a major local newspaper (see ref in the article) as well as plenty of coverage by reliable sources of his campaign and ideas    . Pichpich (talk) 03:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course press coverage is expected for such campaign and that does not translate into the subject passing WP:POLITICIAN. If elected, we may probably consider an article. However you are not suppose to base your conclusion on the campaign but the result of the election. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Newspaper endorsements don't count for anything toward notability — they're opinion commentary, not news coverage, and thus serve to prove that the purpose of the Wikipedia article is fundamentally to provide a promotional boost by publicizing the endorsement. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read again the third point of WP:POLITICIAN: if the subject is notable in the sense of WP:GNG then all is well. The sources I listed above qualify as multiple non-trivial reliable coverage of Hal Heiner and in particular  are two in-depth profiles. Pichpich (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Coverage of a political candidacy, in a media outlet that has a legal and ethical public service obligation to cover the election campaign in question, falls under WP:ROUTINE and does not satisfy WP:GNG in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * By that logic, no news media can ever be cited as a reliable source. The references above are not routine coverage (at least, not in the sense of WP:ROUTINE which include announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism, planned coverage of pre-scheduled events and wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs). Note the paradox: you currently disqualify the two profiles above as routine coverage, yet if Heiner becomes governor or meets the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN in some other way, I'm sure you'd have no objection to using these profiles as references. Pichpich (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If coverage of a candidacy were, in and of itself, enough to get a person into Wikipedia, then we would always have to keep every article about every unelected candidate in every election — because there is no such thing as a candidate for whom media coverage does not exist. Heiner is not some kind of special case who's garnering more coverage than other election candidates do, and thus earns some kind of special notability dispensation different from how we handle other unelected candidates — media coverage of all unelected candidates for any political office always exists. But our rule is that we do not consider a politician to be notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia article until they've won election to a notable office. I did not say that those sources can never be used as support for any Wikipedia content — if he wins the election, then yes, they will become admissible as sources for the article. Not because the sources themselves will have changed, but because the basic claim of notability that they're supporting will have moved from "unelected candidate = not yet" to "elected governor = required keep". Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me insist: point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN explicitly states that it is superseded by WP:GNG. If you agree that the two profiles constitute significant coverage of Mr Heiner (and I don't know how you can argue against that) then he's notable per point 3 of the guideline. It's true that marginal candidates for office will only get incidental, routine coverage and those fail to meet the requirements of the guideline. But in this case, we're talking about detailed coverage of Heiner specifically. Pichpich (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Candidate profiles are routine; many candidates receive in-depth profiles while they are candidates but that doesn't make them notable. Find other sources, preferably ones outside the local Louisville area that highlight Heiner's efforts when as a council member. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 20:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing I think you're missing here is that "this source actively supports a valid claim of notability" and "this source is reliable for simple confirmation of facts about him" are two different things — a source can fall into one of those two classes while failing to satisfy the other. If a person's basic notability (i.e. winning the election and thereby holding a notable office) has already been covered off by other sources, then prior coverage of the candidacy becomes perfectly valid for additional confirmation of any facts that it can verify — but coverage of the candidacy does not, in and of itself, make the person notable enough for an article so long as they're still only a candidate. Such coverage is valid for further confirmation of facts after notability has already been covered off — but it is not able to bring the notability per se, because what it tells us about him at this point doesn't constitute a substantive claim of encyclopedic notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Except in rare circumstances on the order of the media firestorm that ate Christine O'Donnell, campaign coverage is not normally sufficient to get a candidate for office into Wikipedia on the basis of the candidacy itself — media have a public service obligation to cover elections taking place in their coverage area, so such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot get an unelected candidate into Wikipedia by itself. And that goes double when, for the moment, the person is still merely a candidate in a party primary — even winning the primary and becoming the official candidate in the general election still wouldn't satisfy our inclusion rules in and of itself. For an unelected candidate for office, you must properly source that they already qualified for a Wikipedia article on a different notability criterion before they became a candidate — if you cannot do that, then they must win the election, not merely run in it, to become notable enough. Louisville, further, is not in the narrow range of global cities for which the fact of serving on city council constitutes an automatic "because he exists" keep in and of itself — if you could write and source a phenomenally good and substantive article about his city council work, then he could potentially pass NPOL #3, but a single sentence asserting that he was a city councillor, and offering no further detail about that part of his career beyond the statement itself, does not get him over a Wikipedia inclusion bar either. So, all in all, for the moment we've got nothing. Delete — no prejudice against recreation if (a) he wins the election in November, or (b) somebody can actually get him over WP:GNG for the city council seat. Bearcat (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as he has lost the primary. SOXROX (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect per MelanieN. Heiner came in third in today's primary and nobody has made a WP:GNG case for the city council seat. Being from Louisville, I would have tried to make that case myself, but I can't think of anything notable Heiner has done in that role that got press from outside the city, so I don't know where to start.  But if someone does find such reliable sources, ping me and I'll reconsider.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 02:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, getting coverage for his city council work beyond Louisville alone isn't the only way a city councillor could clear the bar — it is certainly the easiest way to make the case for inclusion airtight, but it's not the only possible path. Even Louisville-only coverage can still satisfy the test, if you're able to add enough of that to support an article that's detailed and substantive enough to make it obvious that he satisfies NPOL #3. Which would obviously take far more than just one article confirming that he was a city councillor (which is why the article isn't already there as written), and many Wikipedians aren't prepared to put that much work into a topic — but it does still as a way to get a city councillor in the door. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can be flexible here within reason. But like I note below, he's the only Louisville council member in the Wikipedia who wasn't President of the council, and the only issue I remember him doing anything notable about was working to improve the city's financial transparency via passage of an ordinance several years ago.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 11:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep even with primary loss Being a city councilor in a major city like Louisville is enough to pass WP:NOTE. As far as WP:GNG, he has received wide press coverage from reliable sources, both as a gubernatorial candidate and as a councilor. I understand the question and appreciate the discussion but I think we need to keep this article. PrairieKid (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you give us some examples of wide press coverage outside of campaign profiles, which are routine, or press coverage of his council work outside of the local Louisville area? Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 11:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I just wanted to note that of the Louisville Metro Council members who have their own articles, all have been Council President except Hal Heiner. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 11:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Kentucky gubernatorial election, 2015 as is usually done with unsuccessful candidates for office. Otherwise, delete, since he does not pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2015 (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.