Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Morgan (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Jason Morgan (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet unelected candidate for a local county board. As always, a person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate for office, and this isn't a level of office where even winning the seat in November would get him a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- so we can judge his includability only on the basis of whether he would already have qualified for an article before becoming a candidate, but nothing else claimed here (legislative aide, student body president, board of directors of a local community center, etc.) gets him over any of Wikipedia's other inclusion criteria either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – No inherent notability per WP:POLITICIAN and couldn't find evidence of any wider coverage. — Nizolan  (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Nizolan  (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Nizolan  (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Even if elected to the Washtenaw County Board, he would probably not be notable. He is clearly not notable while just a candidate for it. Especially since it is before the filing deadline, so we have no clue if he will even get the nomination, and he might even withdraw before the primary election. So right now he might win the nomination to be his party's candidate for a seat, that even if he wins would not confer on him notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Question Per WP:POLITICIAN, item #2 states: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."  How do we quantify "significant" and how do we know when he has crossed that threshhold?  The demarcation seems a bit nebulous.  Bluetiger50 (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case there are two concerns: one is that the positions listed in the article don't appear to qualify Morgan as a "major" political figure, and the independent coverage doesn't seem to say much that would make him any more major than anyone else in those positions. The second concern is the one over significant coverage. This is a qualitative judgement, but it's just a restatement of the basic rule of notability as applied to biographies. That rule is basically what WP:POLITICIAN is alluding to in the footnotes: A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. In Morgan's case, currently there is only one article from an independent and reliable source cited on the page which could reasonably be called in-depth, the Ann Arbor News/MLive.com article, and as a local newspaper it's questionable whether the Ann Arbor News contributes much to notability without evidence of wider coverage. — Nizolan  (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Normally for a local political figure to pass WP:GNG, the coverage has to nationalize to a degree far beyond what local political figures routinely get in their local media — for instance, if he were getting substantive coverage in The New York Times or The Washington Post, then there'd be an obvious case that he was significantly more notable than the norm for people at that level of politics by virtue of being considered newsworthy by media far beyond his own local area. But local media have an obligation to cover local politics and local elections, which means that all candidates for office always get some media coverage — so that kind of coverage isn't in and of itself enough to get a person into Wikipedia. If the role itself isn't conferring an automatic NPOL pass, then the coverage has to show that he's a lot more notable, for some genuinely substantive reason, than the tens of thousands of other people who have merely been candidates in local elections. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I disagree with Bearcat. All candidates don't always get local coverage. But this guy wouldn't meet notability requirement even if he got elected, so I think it should be deleted. VanEman (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Follow Up Thank you all for the input. I had originally wanted to create this article because this guy was the youngest delegate to the national convention in 2008 and could become the youngest commissioner for this county ever.  Bearcat, in your opinion, does that qualify as something more substantial?  Agree that not all local politicians get extensive media coverage.  Bluetiger50 (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If "X" isn't a role that would pass NPOL in and of itself, then "youngest X" doesn't inherently make him any more notable than any other X, because it's a distinction that can always potentially be outdone again in the future. And "will be the first or last or oldest or youngest or other superlativeist or first minority-group something if he wins an election that he hasn't yet won as of today" doesn't assist, either — a notability claim that's hinged on what might become true in the future doesn't get a person over the bar if that claim isn't already true today. And while being a delegate to a party's national convention is something that we can mention in an article that has already cleared the notability bar in other ways, it's not a claim that gets a person over the notability bar in and of itself either. And finally, please note that I didn't say that all local politicians get extensive media coverage — but all local politicians do get some degree of media coverage, and you haven't demonstrated that Morgan's level of coverage is particularly "extensive" compared to most or many others. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Being a young person attending a convention is not evidence of notability unfortunately. AusLondonder (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as not satisfying any applicable notability, not yet convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  03:57, 8 April 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.