Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madinah Wilson-Anton


 * 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 no consensus. Views split between keeping and drafting. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Madinah Wilson-Anton

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP of a person who as of today is notable only as an as yet unelected candidate for political office. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and neither predictions about their prospects of winning nor the historic firsts that they will represent if they win make them notable just for being candidates either. The existence of a couple of hits of campaign coverage also does not hand candidates a GNG-based exemption from NPOL, because every candidate can always show a couple of hits of campaign coverage. As well, the fact that the election is only a couple of weeks away, and thus the article will have to be recreated if she wins, is not a valid reason to waive policy in the meantime: if we were to set a rule that there was a moratorium on deleting premature campaign brochures for unelected candidates X days out from the election, then every candidate in the country could just suddenly flood Wikipedia with their campaign brochures on day X for that last minute publicity push — so no matter how close the election is, we still have to treat articles about unelected candidates exactly the same right now as we would any other time. Obviously no prejudice against recreation if she wins, but nothing stated here entitles her to already have an article in advance of the election. Bearcat (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Draftify or Delete - Does not currently meet WP:NPOL because they do not hold political office. If she wins in November, then she would meet the guidelines. If it makes more sense to move this to draftspace for now or to delete and start from scratch, that is up to other editors. Bkissin (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete unelected candidate for public office are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The standard for an unelected candidates for state legislature is delete under WP:NPOL as expressed in WP:POLOUTCOMES, and as such, this page should be deleted/draftified. With the election in 15 days (as of this post), I do believe it makes certain sense to wait, despite the very valid concerns raised by Bearcat about this project being flooded with campaign brochures for a last-minute publicity push. --Enos733 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  16:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject meets general WP:N standards. Lastchapter (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If the subject doesn't pass WP:NPOL, and doesn't have enough sourcing to clear the deliberately high bar that we set to prevent Wikipedia from devolving into a repository of campaign brochures for everybody who ever ran as a candidate for anything, then how does she meet general N standards? Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, I may have misunderstood. I amend my vote to Draftify in anticipation of the election. Lastchapter (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , while avoiding the devolution into a repository of failed candidates is laudable, the counter-argument, in Ms Wilson-Anton case, is that she is a first.
 * The first person to climb Mt Everest was extra notable, due to the extra coverage he got for being first. The one Sherpa who accompanied him also received a lot of RS coverage, and merits a standalone article. Eventually Everest climbing stopped getting floods of RS coverage, and most later Everest climbers didn't measure up to GNG.  Most of those who died trying to climb Everest don't receive enough RS coverage to merit a standalone article.  But, if someone set out to climb Everest, and they received RS coverage because they were, for instance, the first muslim woman to attempt to climb Everest, we would consider them notable, even if their attempt failed.
 * Ms Wilson-Anton received coverage that focussed on her being the first muslim with a chance to enter the Delaware legislature. That argues for her measuring up to GNG, even if she will not measure up the NPOL unless she is elected.  (FWIW, it seems like for her district, she is a shoe-in, with some reporting treating her defeat of whomever the Republicans put up to challenge her as foregone conclusion.)
 * You will see participants, in AFD, whose arguments boil down to "Well, I don't consider this person's accomplishments significant enough to be notable...", who discount RS coverage they consider insignificant. Personally, I consider that is a disturbing mistake, and a retreat from the kind of strict observance of WP:NPOV I would like to see.  None of us are RS ourselves.  If we let ourselves, or the contributors we work with, discount meaningful RS coverage, we are usurping the role of real newspaper editors.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Draftify - probably does fall short of our notability standards for BLPs and politicians currently. It was interesting to see coverage in an Indonesian news source that looked quite extensive. Probably WP:TOOSOON but draft seems like a sensible alternative to deletion that should be considered. Spiderone  22:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify Hiiiii I'm kinda new to Wikipedia and I actually didn't mean to publish the page, I was going to keep it as a Draft until she was formally elected to the State Legislature. My bad. I hope you'll consider drafting it for now. User:Stanloona2020 6:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify The election is only a couple weeks away, right? She'll be notable very shortly. Or she won't be. We'll find out soon. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG. KidAd   talk  23:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - while an individual who is a not yet elected candidate doesn't measure up to NPOL, that individual may, nevertheless measure up to GNG. Wilson-Anton did receive some coverage, prior to her candidacy, which means she is not a BLP1E.  And, unelected candidates who represent a first, first gay candidate, first disabled candidate, first female candidate, or in her case, first muslim candidate, may get sufficient coverage to measure up to GNG.
 * I added some references and new material, and I suggest she measures up to GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Being the first X holder of a political office may be (but still isn't guaranteed to be) a notability claim that makes a person in a not inherently notable position more notable than the norm, such as if a person's election as a smalltown mayor simultaneously made them the first LGBT or Muslim officeholder in their entire country's history (but not if it made them merely the first in their own small town). Merely being a candidate for a position that they will become the first X holder of the office if they win is not — because for one thing, that doesn't necessarily make them the "first X candidate" in and of itself (there may have been other X candidates before them who simply didn't win), and for another, if they lose then the whole thing resets and the next X person who comes after them can make the exact same "will be the first X if they win" claim again. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 27 October 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.