Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Klacik


 * 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. Arguments have been made that much of the coverage does represent routine local campaign coverage - but significant national and international coverage, focused specifically on the subject, does seem to have developed over the course of the debate. Later participants increasingly seem in agreement that there is enough coverage to easily satisfy the general notability guideline. ~ mazca  talk 20:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Kimberly Klacik

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

rThis article vastly fails to establish notability. Running for congress alone does not automatically establish notability. The only argument for her notability is that her campaign ad attracted attention. Even then, I am pretty sure that there are YouTubers that have had videos garner more views than her ad that don't even have articles. It's a very very weak argument for notability. SecretName101 (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete not meeting WP:NPOL, if the subject wins an election, then reconsider creation. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I would have nominated this myself if I'd seen it moved to mainspace. She isn't notable, the soundbytes in various unreliable sources are meaningless and she woefully fails WP:NPOL. Unless of course, in the extremely unlikely event she beats Kweisi Mfume, she fails all our criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to the current election in which she's running. --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - fails NPOL, passes GNG. I understand the rationale behind the delete votes, but I see sources and for other bio articles, that's all that's needed. Don't see a need for NPOL to override GNG here. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  14:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the sources are substantially about her though. They're ranging from puff pieces to unreliable publications with soundbytes. Praxidicae (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete NPOL exists because virtually every political candidate would pass some understandings of GNG. She does not pass any reasonable test of long term impact at this time. This will change if she wins reelection, but that has not occured.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least for the time being. In addition to her campaign, Klacik is also scheduled to speak at the 2020 Republican National Convention tonight; and with the attention her campaign video has gotten I would tend to think it would be a good idea to keep the article for now and perhaps revisit this issue depending on how she does on November 3. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty of people speak at conventions, some even garnering headlines. Not all of those people are notable enough to garner their own Wikipedia pages. Unless their speeches literally dominate the headlines the way Khizr and Ghazala Khan did at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, I don't believe it garners them the notability to have their own Wikipedia page. SecretName101 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Concur with ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  and WAVY 10 Fan.  Klacik's notoriety surpasses and transcends that of the article for the proposed redirect. She is a rising star on the right, has already garnered international attention, and her profile is only increasing on the national stage, especially with the upcoming election. And the fact that she has been chosen to address the 2020 Republican National Convention will further advance her notability.  This young lady has made a name for herself, whether she wins her election or not.  She is here to stay, regardless of those who may wish otherwise. WP:NPOL states, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."  In that aspect she exceeds the standard, having been covered by national media, in addition to meeting WP:GNG. All of that evidence combined is more than sufficient grounds to justify this article. - JGabbard (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That "international attention" is not at all indicated in the article itself. While she does generate a lot of search results (a possible argument for keeping this article, so long as the article itself can establish notability), it appears many articles that are search results for her name are more about the 2020 special election in general than specific to her or her own campaign. SecretName101 (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * She's not even generating actual attention in *Baltimore* where she's running...Praxidicae (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete As pre-election candidate bios go, this one does not meet WP:GNG. KidAd   talk  19:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Maryland as an appropriate and usual outcome per WP:POLOUTCOMES. There is no indication that the subject passes WP:NPOL. No prejudice against recreation if the subject wins in November. --Enos733 (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources, per WP:GNG. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please identify the sources you think provide significant coverage? Neutralitytalk 22:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, please see:
 * - full article and biography by Associated Press.
 * - full article by Fox News
 * - interview by The Washington Post.
 * - full article on CBS Baltimore.
 * - full article on CBS Baltimore.
 * - full article in New York Post.
 * - full article on Fox News.
 * - full article in The Washington Post
 * - full article by BET.
 * - full article by Fox News.
 * - full article by WBAL Baltimore.
 * - full article by Fox News.
 * - full article on KUSI San Diego.
 * - full article by Fox News.
 * - full article by The Hill.
 * - full article in New York Post.
 * - biography in the Baltimore Sun.
 * - full article by Fox News.
 * - editorial about Klacik in Baltimore Sun. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems like ROUTINE campaign coverage. The bulk of the coverage is local. The Washington Post article is the most detailed/in-depth, but note that it appears in the "local" section. The AP article is also not a "full article and biography" - it's a brief (6 short paragraph) article just reporting on Klacik's convention speech. This seems to me to be analogous to Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield (candidate for Senate in Iowa had coverage, but consensus was to redirect to election page). Neutralitytalk 14:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per NPOL. Not clear that a YouTube video and a bunch of Fox News "articles" meets GNG either. 24.183.75.20 (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per other comments { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - remarkably little in-depth sourcing from independent sources at the moment. Coverage might be sufficient to meet GNG in the future but not there yet. Neutralitytalk 22:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, and the article fails WP:NPOV. --WMSR (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: An example of her notability reaching Australia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_eLOhSJMvY 60.241.110.166 (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * An individual, on this article's talk page, accused this deletion nomination of being partisan, an attempt to drown out the subject's message. They accused the assertion she is not notable enough of being "leftist nonsense" writing, "With her widespread current media coverage, Kim Klacik is more relevant than probably +80% of individuals who currently have a Wikipedia page dedicated to them. With her message starting to gain momentum, the political left in the United States wants her silenced to the greatest degree possible. Therefore, any motions made to have this page taken down must be assumed to be politically motivated." The assertion that this is politically motivated or meritless is completely false. In addition to the arguments already laid-out, there are two additional policies of Wikipedia she fails: •The first is Wikipedia's policy on Recentism. We commonly use the "ten-year test", which asks, "Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?". Ms. Klacik may have a flash-in-the-pan second of semi-relevance, but are they truly notable in and of themselves and in ten years will there be anything written here about them remotely notable? There is a valid argument that she strongly fails that test. •The second is What Wikipedia is not. This includes that Wikipedia is not "a newspaper". This policy states that, "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." SecretName101 (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Magnolia677. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails notability. Very scant information on her (viral ad, retweeted by Trump, invited to speak at 2020 Republican convention, member of a Baltimore Republican committee, runs a non-profit). Summing up Magnolia677’s "significant coverage in reliable sources:"
 * 1 - AP. Short article with very little personal info (2 sentences). Mostly about being invited to speak at Republican convention, Trump having tweeted her ad, and last year’s social media post.
 * 2, 7, 10, 12, 14, 18 - Fox News. Fox providing a platform for basically the same Klacik interview/talking points.
 * 4, 5, 11, 17, 19 - local Baltimore news outlets
 * 6, 16 - New York Post. Tabloid, not RS
 * 9 - Bet UK - an online betting site? Hardly a reliable source, and I don’t see Klacik mentioned there.
 * 15 - The Hill. Content: viral ad, will speak at Republic convention, running against Mfume.
 * 3 - Washington Post. Not an interview. They show her ad, accompanied by one sentence: Kimberly Klacik, who is running for late Elijah E. Cummings’s seat in Maryland, told the RNC on Aug. 24 that successive Democrats had run Baltimore "into the ground."
 * 8 - Washington Post, local section. Spoke at Republican convention, viral ad (quote: Walking through West Baltimore streets in red stilettos and a red dress).  Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Bet UK - an online betting site". For goodness sake!  Black Entertainment Television.  All you had to do was read the article and you'd know this.  Your effort to dismiss these articles is remarkable. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No effort at all, aside from having had to read all that significant coverage, except for the BET link which reroutes to BET International - no article there or on Wayback Machine for August 19. What are your criteria for "significant coverage?" For example: You described your first source like this: full article and biography by Associated Press. The article has a total of 192 words - scheduled to speak at the convention, running against Mfume after losing in special election, member of the Baltimore County Republican Central Committee, founder of "Potential Me," Trump posted her ad, social media posts showing trash in Baltimore. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Whatever it's value, I'm having no trouble here accessing the BET article. A problem on your end, maybe?
 * -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Must be a problem on my end. Is this it, three sentences? Donald Trump has long been a critic of Baltimore, which he’s previously labeled in July 2019 as a “disgusting” and “rodent infested mess,” so when Kim Klacik, a candidate for Maryland’s 7th District ran an ad reflecting dilapidated neighborhoods in the city, the president praised her. The ad, which has gone viral, attacks Baltimore City’s Democratic leadership. Klacik, who is Black, is running for Rep. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's about 45% of the article. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's about 45% of the article. -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect per Enos. ser! (let's discuss it). 16:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per El cid, el campeador. ~ HAL  333  20:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the extensive coverage listed above by Magnolia677; meets GNG as campaign has been covered in many outlets. --Pudeo (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep but rewrite: this article is badly written and lacks a stable, objective point of view. Kim Klacik is the nominee of the Republican Party and a speaker at the Republican National Convention (this is the reason that I read this article about her). As such, she gains sufficient notability to have an article. James Nicol (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , being a nominee does not satisfy the requirements in WP:NPOL. --WMSR (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * KEEP based on ample coverage found, she clearly passing the general notability guidelines.  D r e a m Focus  17:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article Kimberly Klacik is getting a good amount of traffic, 24,734 views within the last 8 days, compared to 777 in 30 days for Operation PBFortune which is today's featured article (as of now), or 6,583 for Jacobo Árbenz. Not that the number of page views means it's necessarily relevant, but maybe something to consider? Ll1324 (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Page views are not a criteria for keeping an article, nor deleting an article. SecretName101 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There is enough independent coverage here as i'm aware - which means this article passes WP:GNG. This is not as the same as Claudia Conway (as it was driven by tabloid coverage instead).  SMB9 9thx   my edits  13:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Much discussed in media, apparently due in part to an expensive advertising campaign. The article is indeed slanted in the suject's favor, and that ought to be fixed, but the subject is easily notable. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Many things are wrong with this article, quality-wise. But I think for now it’s simply too soon. Let’s call a spade a spade: she isn’t a notable businessperson by Wikipedia standards; she didn’t win the special election to fill Rep. Cummings seat, and she’s not notable as a strategist. For that reason, I say delete for now. Being controversial itself doesn’t warrant an article with nothing to write on. Trillfendi (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Media profile is established and rising; is at least as strong as Amy McGrath who has had a page for three years after losing a House of Representatives race. Possible user bias in favor of deletion because this candidate is a Republican.Viperstick (talk)  comment added 06:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * McGrath is the 2020 Democratic challenger of Senate majority leader Mitch Mc'Connell. She lost her House race by 3 percent, not 75 like Klacik. She's also one of the first female fighter pilots in the US Armed Forces and the first woman to fly a combat mission in the United States Marine Corps. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I take great offense to the implication that those favoring deletion are practicing "political bias". Looking at this page, you should be able to clearly see that valid arguments are being made in favor of deletion, whether or not they sway you to the conclusion that deletion is warranted. This discussion has clearly been about whether this article meets proper criteria as outlined by Wikipedia policy, not whether any involved wikipedians like or agree with her politics. SecretName101 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe you are correct, SecretName101, and that is as it should be, at least in theory. Nevertheless, I still find it "interesting" to observe that those favoring redirect and/or deletion with declared political affiliations on their userpages are all leftists. I might also add that your initial contention for the deletion of this article no longer holds water due to developments of this past week, as reflected by the strong trajectory of recent consensus.  With now tens of thousands of views, it would be absurd to NOT have an article on Klacik. - JGabbard (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Page views don’t determine inclusion notability. That aside, conservatives may seem to think everyone is out to get them but it’s really possible to put your politics aside and look at things for what they are. That’s our job here. I’m liberal down to the socks, yet I turned Heidi Cruz, whom I agree with on zilch politically nor her husband, into a Good Article. Trillfendi (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pageviews are not a criteria for keeping an article. And what are the "developments of past week" that change the circumstances completely?? Are you refering to the fact that she spoke at the RNC? Plenty of people who delivered speeches more notable than her's at this year's conventions will not be receiving articles. Speaking at a convention is not a criteria of notability. SecretName101 (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said that view counts make Klacik notable, but they do serve to signify her relevance. And this level of frenetic deletionist activity is primarily reserved for, shall we say, "relevant" political figures and high-profile hot topics. And just because objective editing to promote articles clashing with one's political views is "possible," and certainly may occur at times, hardly makes it probable or a commonly-occurring practice, especially when it comes to such consensus discussions. The WikiMafia hatchet men (and women) never rest, and I have seen them in action way too many times to be that naïve. - JGabbard (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This discussion should have been closed when she appeared at the RNC. Googling "Kim Klacik" news articles returns around | 200,000 results, seems like most major news outlets have articles directly mentioning her, e.g. WaPo, Fox News, CNN, Baltimore Sun and virtually every major Maryland news station, NY Post, I could go on and on. Consensus appears to be strongly trending toward keeping the article, and I invite any non-involved editor to close the discussion.  CatcherStorm    talk   08:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hope you’re aware that “Google hits” is a fallacy. Trillfendi (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They linked to Google NEWS hits, which are perfectly valid in this context.  D r e a m Focus  17:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at those results? I did - I'd say 90% local news (Baltimore Sun, WBAL, CBS Baltimore, etc.), the rest Fox News, Washington Times, very few RS (along the lines of "How to watch the Republican Convention," list of speakers). Also a few articles about other Kims (Kardashian, Jong Un). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How did her RNC appearance cancel this discussion? Her speech has not been considered among the more notable remarks even from the first night, as far as the coverage I've seen. And there are plenty who delivered more notable convention speeches this year, who will not be eligible for Wikipedia articles. SecretName101 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, the subject of the article meets WP:GNG. She has received significant coverage from several reliable sources as seen above. Of course a lot of the coverage is going to be local, she is a local candidate. Local coverage does not disprove notability. There is nothing in GNG that states local news is somehow less reliable. Here is an news clip/interview from CNN Politics. Surely you consider this a "reliable" source? What about this Washington Post article directly mentioning Klacik? Is this blog entry from NBC News directly mentioning Klacik and her campaign also considered unreliable as well? What about this BBC News clip directly mentioning Klacik? I'm eager to hear your excuses.  CatcherStorm    talk   01:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Her last run garnered only a quarter of the popular vote, definitely not a notable run. And the only argument I'm hearing that her current run is itself "notable" is that she had a well-watched video. Hundreds of people run as their party's nominees in races for congress every two years, they don't all get Wikipedia articles. Outside of her current run for office (which is of very questionable notability) how is she notable? And it's not about reliability of news sources, it is about whether those news sources actually provide the kind of coverage that establishes her individual notability. SecretName101 (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's one item of "significant coverage" in those search results: In a sure to be hot and contentious race. 75:25—not THAT hot or contentious. I haven't a clue how those Google search algorithms work. I suspect that they just count the number of times the name, e.g., "Klacik," appears in a news article because those 200,000 search results actually only yielded 158 articles like this one on CNN Business. The article is about Trump's attacks on Elijah Cummings but Klacik is mentioned nine times. They also list the name when it's not mentioned in the article but in "Related" and "You might be interested in" clickbait or for no apparent reason as in this result. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC) BTW, in Baltimore City she received six percent of the vote in the April 2020 Special Election. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC) CNN: Neither a news clip nor an interview. It's two sentences introducing "viral" ad. BBC: Mentioning her as one of four Black speakers at the RNC. NBC: Viral ad got attention of Trump, may have future in Republican Party (if she does we can revisit) because it can't attract Black voters. Washington Post: That's not an article, it's an op-ed by rabid Trump supporter Thiessen. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't intend to reply to this discussion any further, as I am only wasting my time. You have managed to find the most inane excuses to discredit the sources given. Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, biased, or unobjective. An op-ed by a Trump supporter doesn't make it any different from an op-ed by a Biden supporter, and it certainly doesn't mean it can't be used to prove notability. And like I said, whether you want to accept this or not, the article blatantly passes GNG. There is significant coverage, and the sources are secondary and reliable. Nothing you say or think can change this fact. Regarding your claim that the sources don't demonstrate notability because they aren't "articles" or because they are "only covering a viral ad", audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. I understand you two feel very strongly about censoring Klacik's article from Wikipedia, as many others do, but at this point you are only lying to yourselves. Have a good day.   CatcherStorm    talk   12:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep GNG demonstrated, add to the list of sources.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 16:13, 1 September 2020 (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.