Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Crow (American Politician)


 * 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. It looks like if anything the race may be notable; if the material of this article is needed for that please ask at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Jason Crow (American Politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet the notability guidelines for politicians, which specifically state "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 primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Other than running for office there doesn't seem to be another claim to notability(such as his legal or military careers).  It almost reads as a bio in campaign literature.

Having examined the sources, they consist of affiliated websites(his lawfirm and campaign websites), announcements of his campaign, and name-drops in larger articles about Democratic congressional candidates in general without in depth coverage. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  09:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  09:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unexceptional military, professional and political career. A search turned up a couple of everyday political campaign reports (i.e. try to start an argument to get your name in the papers); but no truly independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NBIO including WP:NPOL. Narky Blert (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've got a dog in this fight, and don't want to pretend otherwise. I live in the district and am impacted by this race and have been volunteering for one of Jason's opponents -- Levi Tillemann. That said, I don't think it is helpful to the community to delete a page on a frontrunner for a congressional race that was one of the most expensive in the country in 2016. He has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject from both local and national sources. People are trying to learn about the guy. He also definitely seems to pass the bar on being a major local political figures who have received significant press coverage WP:POLITICIANS. to Right now, there's no neutral and trusted broker for information on him. Clearly, I agree that merely being a candidate doesn't guarantee notability, but I think that were he NOT a candidate and had a similar level of coverage in reliable sources, we wouldn't be hesitating to post this. Fully understand that my opinion here will be discounted because of my connection, but I sincerely don't see how deleting the page improves the community Corbantd (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please offer the sources that you claim have the significant coverage of Jason Crow, as well as any sources claiming he is a "frontrunner"; they aren't in the article currently. Wikipedia is not for a promotional purpose like helping people "trying to learn about the guy"; he must be notable per notability guidelines and IMO does not appear to be currently.  He isn't notable as a candidate(if he wins then he would merit an article as a member of Congress) per WP:POLITICIAN nor does he seem to be per the general biography guidelines.  Other than his lawfirm's website(which is not an independent source) there is no information about how he is notable as an attorney or as a member of the military.  Again, please offer any sources you have that aren't in the article currently, if they exist. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @331dot I disagree with how you've read the 'promotional purposes' rule. Of course this shouldn't be about advocacy, propaganda, marketing, scandal mongering, self-promotion, etc -- but it absolutely IS for people trying to learn noteworthy and verifiable information about notable public figures. I agree that the tone in the current piece might feel promotional, but that's a result of how it's written, not the fact that the guy isn't notable. The article looks like it was updated to provide a more balanced and complete picture of Crow and his career. Regardless, Crow was called the front runner by ColoradoPolitics "Crow is emerging as the frontrunner in the race" and The Hill  "Jason Crow, a Denver-area lawyer and veteran who has emerged as the clear front-runner," which are the most influential political newspapers in Colorado and in the Country respectively. There have been at least 5 dedicated profiles to him covering every prominent local paper and he's been name dropped in Rolling Stone, Politico, The Hill and then a bunch of smaller outlets. Corbantd (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't keep articles about candidates just because a source predicts that they're the front-runner — lots of people have been perceived as the front runner in an election that they ultimately lost (Hillary Clinton would be sitting in the White House right now if the front-runner always won), who's the front runner can change over the course of the campaign (Tom Mulcair would be Prime Minister of Canada right now if the front-runner at the start of an election campaign always stayed the front-runner right through to election day), and different sources can come to different reads on who is or isn't the front-runner (see the whole "unskewing" thing in 2012, where some sources were predicting a more Romney-friendly voter turnout model than others were.) And getting namedropped in sources doesn't assist notability either — if he were the subject of coverage in Politico, Rolling Stone or The Hill, then there might be a case that he was beginning to clear GNG, but a person doesn't clear notability standards just because those sources namecheck his existence within coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you read the Hill article, he was the primary subject of that coverage. Or at least, it was evenly split between Crow and Tillemann Corbantd (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Being the primary subject of one source is not enough to confer a WP:GNG pass in and of itself. To make a valid claim that a person has passed GNG for the candidacy itself, the candidate has to garner far more than the merely expected and WP:ROUTINE level of campaign coverage that always exists for all candidates — the canonical example is Christine O'Donnell, who got so bloody much coverage that her article cites 160 sources, and is consequently both longer and better sourced than our article about the guy she lost to. One extralocal source giving a candidate coverage that goes beyond mentioning his existence is not enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot take the candidacy completely out of the equation and still have a keepable article about somebody who already met a notability standard for some other reason, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article on here for his political activities per se. About half the footnotes here are primary sources (his own campaign website, his own staff profile on the website of his own employer, YouTube videos, FEC directories, etc.) that cannot assist notability at all, and even the ones that are to proper reliable sources are almost entirely local and WP:ROUTINE: the media are expected to grant coverage to local political races happening in their own coverage area, which means that every candidate in any election always gets some media attention. Accordingly, such coverage does not get the candidate over WP:GNG as a Christine O'Donnell-style special case unless and until it explodes into something far out of proportion to what every candidate could always show. So this article simply isn't demonstrating what's actually required. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: This particular race is garnering attention outside the usual local/regional area, per The Hill and similar -- the line between "namechecks" and coverage is a thin one, but in the case of a US Congressional race, when there are enough "namechecks" that go beyond a simple laundry list, this is strong evidence that someone is a major candidate for Federal Office, and thus notable -- far beyond, for example, a candidate for a state or local office.  In this case, this individual has been a speaker at the DNC, the contested primary has been discussed at Roll Call, Crow has been noticed by several other national outlets, including CNN, The Chicago Tribune The Week, Axios, and although being one of Denver's "40 Under 40" isn't notable by itself, the coverage from 2013 was neutral, third party prior to his run for office, so it is a contributing factor.  He also has been targeted by the NRCC, so getting the attention of one's opponents also contributes. In short, this one is of adequate indicia of notability to pass GNG.  Also, there is no rule that one has to "take the candidacy completely out of the equation."  That is neither consensus nor part of NPOL, which states, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable...[per GNG]" Nothing says that coverage outside of the candidacy is the only thing that can be used.   Montanabw (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The points you speak of seem to me to go to the notability of the election itself, which would merit an article anyway. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 331dot is correct: the coverage you're talking about speaks to the notability of the election, which is already going to get an article anyway once the time comes that people start working on the 2018-midterms cycle articles, and not to the independent notability of every (or any) individual candidate in the election's primary process. Again, this type of coverage always exists for every candidate in every election, but Wikipedia's notability rules for politicians are intentionally designed to prevent Wikipedia from devolving into a repository of unelected candidates' campaign brochures — the expected and WP:ROUTINE coverage of candidates in the context of an election campaign does not count as WP:GNG-conferring coverage for the purposes of handing each individual candidate a standalone BLP separately from the overall article about the campaign. As of right now, we're still talking about a person who's a candidate in a primary race that's still about a year away, and that's simply not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — even being a candidate in the general election isn't enough except in a few very isolated special cases. And yes, the only other way a candidate gets a Wikipedia article is if they already cleared a notability standard for some other reason completely divorced of their candidacy itself — such as having already held another notable political office, or already having had preexisting notability in sports or arts or business. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think what we're seeing this develop into is quite the opposite of a campaign brochure -- it is a valuable reference highlighting both assets and controversies surrounding a particularly notable candidate. Corbantd (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Except the notability guidelines specifically state that candidates are not notable just for being candidates. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is entirely possible for a campaign brochure to be written in a seemingly neutral and not overly advertorial way, or even a negative one (e.g. a competing candidate's attack ads against their opponent still fall under the rubric of campaign literature — and yes, our articles can be and are often used as a venue for attack edits against opponents, and protecting people from that risk is one of the reasons we limit political notability to officeholders rather than mere candidates.) What determines whether it is or isn't a campaign brochure is not just the writing tone that is or isn't used, but the simple fact that its purpose for existing is tied directly to an election campaign. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as unelected candidate with no other claim to notability. And Note that all Democratic candidates for Congress are getting more and earlier coverage than in an ordinary year.  This is not a testament to the special notability of this or other candidates, merely the consequence of the political moment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  06:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Delete or Redirect WP:POLOUTCOMES states, "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010." Looking through the sources in the article, there is nothing that indicates that the subject is notable outside of the election campaign, nor has the subject received a disproportionate amount of coverage similar to Christine O'Donnell, whose campaign received international coverage. The community consensus is that the details of the specific race are notable, and most of the reliable source coverage is about the campaign, rather than the subject (or are tangential COATRACK issues). --Enos733 (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

I think this needs one more week of discussion to see if the redirect option gains any traction. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Perhaps too soon.--Rpclod (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No coverage outside of running for office, fails WPOL. Cllgbksr (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:ROUTINE doesn't apply here.  It's designed to exclude very short notices, such as sports scores and death announcements, not all coverage that occurs on a predictable timetable.  In fact, the advice on how to interpret WP:ROUTINE at WP:NOTROUTINE uses coverage of political races as a specific example of something that is not to be considered routine coverage.  Regardless of whether or not the political notability guidelines are met, WP:GNG clearly are met here, it's very quick and easy to find multiple independent and reliable sources giving this guy significant coverage that allows an article to be sourced, such as this or this or this. Landscape repton (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Those sources are all related to his candidacy, which is specifically called out as not meeting notability. They are more relevant to the election itself. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in WP:GNG that supports that reading. It just demands significant coverage is given to him so that an article can be written without requiring original research.  That's clearly the case with these sources.  Significant coverage isn't exclusive, in that a single source can give significant coverage to multiple topics.  A source can be a source for both an individual and for the political campaign; the fact it does the latter doesn't invalidate the former. Landscape repton (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * One local paper, one Denver article focused on the other candidate, and one non-authoritative blogish site are not sufficient to support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If the volume of reliable source coverage shown here were enough in and of itself, then every candidate in any election would always pass GNG. But Wikipedia is routinely misused as a PR platform by wannabes in a lot of fields of human endeavour — so for human occupations, our notability standards explicitly spell out certain markers of accomplishment that have to be passed before an article is considered acceptable. And for politicians, one of the rules is that they have to hold a notable office, not just be a candidate for one — and while there are rare special cases where a candidacy garners a lot more coverage than the norm (e.g. Christine O'Donnell, whose article cites 160 distinct sources), GNG is not automatically passed just because some media coverage of the candidacy exists, because some media coverage of all candidacies in all elections always exists. What needs to be shown to get a candidate into Wikipedia just for being a candidate is that his candidacy is a lot more notable than most other candidacies are, but that's not what's being shown here. WP:ROUTINE does include coverage that's merely expected to exist, such as local coverage of local politics, and is not limited to just short blurbs. And just for the record, the volume of reliable source coverage present here is not equal to the number of footnotes present — at a glance, about half the footnotes are primary sources, press releases, blogs, YouTube videos or tweets, not real media coverage, and what's left after all of those are discounted is not enough in either volume or depth to deem his candidacy somehow special. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Rpclod that it is too soon and fails WP:Politician. Dolotta (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2017 (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.