Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regina Bateson


 * 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Regina Bateson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that she was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides being a candidate, then she has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. But this does not make any claim of preexisting notability at all -- all of the content outside of her campaign-related coverage itself is referenced to primary sources, not to any evidence that she was getting media coverage for any of it at the time. And the campaign-related coverage itself does not make a candidate notable just for being a candidate, either — it just makes her a WP:BLP1E, and because every candidate in every election always gets some campaign-related coverage, the existence of that coverage does not automatically get a candidate over WP:GNG all by itself. As always, no prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat -- but nothing stated or sourced here entitles her to already have a Wikipedia article today. Tony Nogales (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 16.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 07:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:TOOSOON article for a political candidate. No evidence she has notability on any other grounds. Neiltonks (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'd request in future that the nominator actually write his own nomination statement, instead of copying and pasting one of mine verbatim from another discussion about somebody else — it's not so much that I'm offended at all, as that it can create the appearance that you didn't really evaluate the situation very carefully, but just "templated" your way through a situation that looked equivalent on the surface. But at any rate, it is true that people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — and as of today she isn't even that yet, but is merely a candidate in a primary that hasn't happened yet, which is even less of a basis for notability. But this doesn't demonstrate any strong evidence that she had preexisting notability for other reasons, as her academic career is referenced entirely to primary sources (press releases from the universities she's been affiliated with and one of her own Twitter tweets), not to the reliable source coverage it would take to make her notable for that — and the volume of campaign-specific coverage shown here is not enough to make her candidacy a special case over and above everybody else's candidacy, either. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. As an academic that has been published several times, which have received prestigious awards in her discipline I would suggest keeping this page to reflect her academic accomplishments. These awards are considered prestigious in her disciplines. True that publishing alone is not sufficient enough for notability standards, but the accolades those publications should elevate her. Perhaps strip any references to her public service career. But anything referencing her political campaign should be removed. Criteria in WP:PROF states: "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." She meets at least one condition, condition "2", with two of the highest awards given from the premier journal communities in her disciplines. If these awards do not fully fulfill condition "2" (for their national or international qualifiers) then that is a different story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6BA0:D240:304B:5E63:8DAC:ABF9 (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:POLITICIAN. She has left academia without sufficient publication record to make her notable as a scholar, has, as yet, no achievements as a politician,  and does not appear to have attracted SIGCOV for any other reason.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. One well-cited review paper is a good sign for the future of her academic career, but is not enough by itself for WP:PROF. A dissertation award and a best-paper award are also not enough for #C2; we need something that recognizes her accomplishments more broadly and isn't based only on student work. Her work in the foreign service and her run for congress are not enough for WP:POLITICIAN. And a Q&A in a small local paper (the only source published independently of her and her employers that our article lists) or other routine newspaper coverage of her campaign   is not enough for WP:GNG. We can certainly revisit this case if her political campaign succeeds or she moves forward in her academic career, but for now a lot of things that don't individually add up to notability means no notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete an IP editor has removed all mention of her Congressional candidacy, which arguably makes this worse per notability; WP:NPROF clearly isn't met, and the remaining refs aren't independent (largely being press releases of schools she is affiliated with). power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2018 (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.