Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ja'Mal Green


 * 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ja'Mal Green

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not meet WP:GNG requirements. Most sources are local publications talking about his candidacy or very brief mentions of him. Lacks extensive, national, noteworthy, in-depth coverage of him as a person required for a Wikipedia page. Only 2 national articles cited and 1 is just about his candidacy. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians,  and Illinois.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete non-GNG, failed mayoral candidate, nothing for notability otherwise. Could be promotional due to the upcoming election. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as meeting WP:GNG requirements., , and are all extensive and cover Green in an in-depth manner. Note that GNG is the standard, not whether the person won office.--User:Namiba 19:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Two of those sources are local, and two (including HuffPo, the only non-local source) are just about his candidacy. Again, he doesn't have the ongoing, personal coverage required for a Wikipedia page. Sorry but I don't see how a couple articles about his mayoral candidacy meets GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You should re-read WP:GNG, which sets the standard for biographies as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The location of the source is not a factor according to this guideline.--User:Namiba 13:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show a handful of coverage in the local media of the city or town where they're running for office — so if that were all it took to hand an unelected candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, then NPOL itself would be meaningless as nobody would ever actually be bound by it at all anymore. So the inclusion bar for a non-winning candidate is not just "two or more pieces of run of the mill local media coverage exist" — it isn't passed until the candidate either (a) has some other claim of notability that would have already gotten them into Wikipedia regardless of a candidacy, or (b) can show a reason why their candidacy should be viewed as much, much more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That is certainly your interpretation, but can you point to a policy which states that? A candidate for mayor of one of the largest cities in the United States who is regularly covered in large-scale mass media is not just a run of the mill candidate, either. Moreover, Green has been covered in The Grio, Teen Vogue, and Banking Dive. Those are hardly routine pieces. If you're unhappy with WP:GNG / WP:POLITICIAN, then seek consensus to change those policies. Don't try to ignore them at AFD.--User:Namiba 13:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not "my interpretation", it's the standard consensus that's been upheld in thousands of AFD discussions on unelected political candidates over well more than a decade — even a candidate for president of an entire country doesn't automatically get to keep an article just for being a candidate without having to show preexisting notability for other reasons, let alone a candidate for mayor of a city. And I fail to see how anything in WP:POLITICIAN is in conflict with what I said, for the purposes of claiming that it somehow overrules what I said. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Who said he is automatically eligible? I said he passes GNG. Prove that he doesn't meet GNG if you disagree. Stop conflating your interpretation with consensus. The consensus is the policy.--User:Namiba 16:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, every candidate in every election everywhere would always be able to claim that they passed GNG, and were therefore exempted from actually having to be measured against NPOL at all, if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took — which would render NPOL meaningless, because nobody would ever actually be subject to NPOL at all if all they had to to do exempt themselves from it was show some campaign coverage and then claim GNG. So the established consensus is that campaign coverage is not enough to get an unelected candidate over GNG all by itself — candidates only get Wikipedia articles if either (a) they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can show a credible reason why their candidacy is somehow much more significant than everybody else's candidacies, in such a way that even if they lose, they would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. Not because I "personally interpret" things that way, but because established consensus decided that. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. People don't get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't already won, but this neither claims that he has preexisting notability for other reasons nor demonstrates a reason why he should warrant special treatment denied most other candidates. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG, largely because of the Teen Vogue article. In that article, the subject is used as a prime example of individuals running for office under the age of 25. As Namiba says above, this is not routine coverage. --Enos733 (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing against Teen Vogue but they aren't exactly the New York Times. I fail to see how 1 article from a primarily fashion-based magazine is enough to establish notability. And even if we accept Teen Vogue as an acceptable judge of whose political campaigns are noteworthy, that's just 1 article. How is that enough to establish "significant" coverage under GNG? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Teem Vogue has a good reputation for its political coverage (see this article in Slate or this article in The Atlantic to the reputation of the publication's coverage of politics - especially political activism among its primary readership). As for the second question, I believe once we find (at least) one piece of significant, substantive, coverage of a political candidate, then we can evaluate other coverage (including the volume of local coverage) with the aim of filling out the details from the article with significant coverage. In this case, Namiba suggests there is non routine coverage in the Grio and Banking Dive, publications I am not familiar with, and there is the local Chicago based coverage - both of the subject's campaign and political activism. - Enos733 (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Huff Post + Teen Vogue + extensive, widespread coverage of mayoral candidacies in the US's 3rd city = multiyear, RS SIGCOV = passes WP:BASIC. Despite assertions above, his 2020 candidacy itself was reported as notable: . Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as meeting WP:GNG requirements per sources cited above. Nick Number (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, subject has received SIGCOV in sources for events outside of his mayoral run, and therefore he passes WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E, see this, this and this for examples. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2022 (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.