Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misty Plowright (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk  19:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Misty Plowright
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unelected candidates for political office are not notable for such. The wider coverage is one event at best and not unenough to justify a view that notability is sustained and encyclopedic. For one thing the coverage does not show widespread attention to the actual political views or goals of this person. It is of an entirely different character than say the pre-2014 election coverage of Mia Love, which is the level of coverage we need to show a candidate is notable. That coverage is not here. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 24.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 16:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * See also Articles for deletion/Misty K. Snow Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Well, this is a first for me in eight years at Wikipedia: an AfD-IDHT. Permit me to say again what all six keeps said at AfD1: although she fails WP:POLITICIAN, she easily passes GNG on the grounds of her being an LGBT historic first. That historic first remains despite her not winning the election. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm seeing passing of GNG. Remember that WP:POLITICIAN doesn't override WP:GNG; winners generally are kept and losers may also be kept if they pass GNG.  As with Snow, this was probably re-nominated too soon: generally you should wait a year after something is kept-kept to renom it.  p  b  p  01:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Misty Plowright is a historic first, and, as such, passes WP:NPOL especially #2 & #3 which state:
 * 2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
 * 3. 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". [<-Bolding mine] Shearonink (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Instaurare (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes GNG (and for that matter, POLITICIAN since POLITICIAN explicitly allows for unelected candidates to be notable via GNG). Sources:
 * The Guardian
 * The Daily Dot
 * Politico
 * Vice
 * NBCNews
 * Towleroad
 * Business Insider
 * The Washington Post
 * Berliner Zeitung (in German)
 * Cosmopolitan
 * NBC News
 * Tetu (in French)
 * Slate-FR (in French)
 * Huffington Post-Quebec (in French)
 * Le Monde (in French)
 * Clearly passes GNG, including accounting for the WP:BLP1E criteria--the international press picked up the event of her candidacy as significant, so she does not meet the exclusion criteria. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - passes GNG per the above (and previous AfD) &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - since passing WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN does not apply here. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. A non-winning candidate who fails NPOL can, in certain circumstances, still pass another notability criterion for another reason. The first candidacy by a member of a historically oppressed minority, for example, can be enough to get a person into Wikipedia if they've gotten a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of coverage for that fact. (By comparison, while I can't speak for any other country we do have an article about the first-ever transgender candidate for political office in Canada, even though she didn't win either — because "first transgender candidate" is, in and of itself, enough to make her candidacy more notable than the norm.) While the article as written does need some improvement, Innisfree987 has amply demonstrated above that better sourcing does exist to improve it with — the coverage doesn't just nationalize, it internationalizes to Canada, the UK, France and Germany in a way that coverage of non-winning US congressional candidates very rarely does. And that's exactly how you show that a candidacy is more notable than the norm: press coverage far beyond the routine and expected. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 29 November 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.