Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovative Politicians


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Innovative Politicians

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The term "innovative politician" seems to be one coined by the article's author (i.e. I can't find anything that actually says the words innovative politician verbatim). While I believe the contents in this article could be merged into other articles, the article should be deleted. Ueutyi (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. Joe Roe (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that this article is part of an educational assignment at UC Berkeley. I've notified and  as the contacts for the course. Joe Roe (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per NEOLOGISM. 's editing is the picture of why Wikipedians increasingly hate these WikiEd projects. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as creator-invented neologism. A much broader article about the impact of social media on politics would absolutely be viable and sourceable, especially in the age of the trumptweet, but this as written is neither that article nor its correct title. This isn't even just a USian topic as the article claims; do Justin Trudeau and Naheed Nenshi, who have both made noteworthy and impactful use of social media tools in their political careers as well, not exist? Does the use of social media as an organizing tool for political protest not count for something? And on and so forth? WikiEds really need to start incorporating greater training in the "how to correctly identify the potential article topic" part of the equation, because I've seen entirely too many of these articles that point in the general direction of a valid article topic but completely miss the actual target. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- essentially this is a neologism for a new trend in political campaigning. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you! Lessons learned.
 * Thank you so much Ueutyi, Shawn in Montreal, Joe Roe, Peterkingiron and Bearcat for your feedback and input here. I will encourage my student,, to incorporate her work here into other pages. I will also make sure that students have me approve their ideas for new articles much earlier in the semester, and I will make sure to review them myself before they get out of the sandbox stage. Just FYI, I also had required students to work on 3-5 articles for my class, and I required at least one new article to be a part of that. In retrospect, I will not require new articles be created by all students in future semesters, given how hard it is to get those right. I'm also hoping that  or others at WikiEd can expand the trainings about notability specifically, as this is a topic that a number of my students seem to have had trouble with, and it sounds like perhaps it's not just my students.


 * Chris Troutman, I'm sorry to hear that Wikipedians increasingly hate WikiEd projects. It looks like you're a Campus Ambassador. Do you have a counterpart at UC Berkeley? I would love to meet them and bring them into my classes if I use the curriculum again next year. Also, cool font choice for your signature—I love copperplate and it really makes your name stand out. David (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly my counterpart at Berkeley,, is dead. Wikipedia no longer supports the campus ambassador program, anyway. Ian at Wiki Ed is your point of contact. I absolutely understand what you're going through as I've had classes at UCLA with similar issues which is why I had been so vocal about the importance of Wikipedia getting its interactions with students right. These students unwittingly create headaches for those of us that are long-time editors and it need not be that way. Regardless, I appreciate your attention in this matter. Nobody wants to generate sore feelings over a website and I do, truly, appreciate the work you're doing. We need more academics editing Wikipedia. Thank you for complementing my use of Copperplate Gothic. User signatures help establish personality in this text-only environment although many editors eschew the appearance of vanity. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This a neologism that is being used to group politicians with no coherent connection or reliable and verifiable sources to establish it as a notable concept. Alansohn (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2016 (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.