Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renee Hoyos


 * 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. Clear consensus to delete. There's two basic arguments here. One is reaction to the WP:UPE and WP:COI aspects. Those could be resolved by an uninvolved editor writing a new article and/or declaring their COI. The other issue is whether this meets WP:NPOLITICIAN and/or WP:GNG; the general feeling here is that it doesn't. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Renee Hoyos

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Part of a political election campaign. DePRODed. Concern = ''Paid article created as part of the September 2017 election campaign for the 2nd Congressional seat of Tennessee. Fails WP:POLITICIAN''. The page was a commisioned work created by banned paid editor KDS4444. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. We cannot keep content created by an undisclosed paid editor in violation of our terms of use. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Conceivably notable as an environmental activist on the strength of this newspaper reference if an additional in-depth reference can be found, but I agree that just being a candidate does not itself bring notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong delete unelected candidates are almost always not notable. Her role as an activist no where near comes close to being notable. Wikipedia is not a proper place for campaign promotionalism, and we need to be hyper vigilant is destroying attempts to abuse the encyclopedia to use it for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Page has many issues, apparently - but not meeting WP:NPOL or WP:GNG are two of these issues. SportingFlyer  talk  21:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Heavy COI and does not satisfy GNG. --1l2l3k (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in congressional primaries — she has to win the general election in November to claim notability as a politician, not just be a candidate for her party's nomination. Absent an election victory that makes her the district's formal representative-elect, she would need to demonstrate enough preexisting notability for other reasons to have qualified for an article on those grounds — but this cites only a single "Top 10" listicle in the local newspaper, which is not enough coverage to have gotten her over WP:GNG for that work. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Hoyos is now the official Democratic Nominee for the Second Congressional District, receiving over 22,000 votes in the primary election. She has been the subject of numerous interviews and news articles in the greater Knoxville area, and (I believe) the first woman to win a primary election for a major party in Tennessee's 2nd district. This fact alone is significant and merits recognition. It is also untrue that politicians who have not won a general election do not receive Wikipedia articles-- take for example congressional nominee Randy Bryce or perennial Tennessee candidate Basil Marceaux, the latter of whom received fewer than 1300 votes in his most recent bid for governor. Barring how effectively this shows her "notability", a quick google of her nonprofit work shows obvious public awareness and community engagement. Hoyos was the Executive Director of the Tennessee Clean Water Network for 14 years, and has been featured in numerous articles describing her advocacy for water quality in Tennessee. See this article about sewage spills. The TCWN under her leadership also sued the department of defense for dumping an explosive chemical in the Holston river, contaminating drinking water, and won this battle. She personally has been profiled in several articles and has represented environmental interests in a high-profile way consistently for years. Furthermore, I have personally spoken with one of her representatives who stated that the article by KDS4444 was done for free, prior to the beginning of her campaign and centered on her environmental, not political work. I am a greenhorn, but will be happy to contribute, or to nominate someone to contribute more to this article to reflect this. Senorred (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The very first reference in the very first version of the article history talks about her announcing her candidacy, so I don't buy the "free article prior to nomination" argument for a second. Furthermore, check out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. SportingFlyer  talk  01:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay, I reached out and spoke to Hoyos tonight. She says the original author approached her and offered to write the article for free. She believed that the original article had more information about her environmental work, since it was related to the articles that author was publishing. If the concern with the article is just the stub component from the original edit, I'll be happy to rewrite the entire article without that particular phrase. I've already shown she has more than two articles from different reputable sources (that are NOT from the original article) to indicate she's a person of likely notability. Is there a way to extend this deletion nomination discussion so that I can get the time/collaborators to do a major rewrite reflecting this?Senorred (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I have dramatically updated the article to meet standards for both WP:POLITICIAN and GNG. These include 2 biographical in-depth, independent articles that examine the subject before her political campaign. Furthermore, several articles and links have been added describing her environmental advocacy (wherein she is quoted), specifically w/r/t her involvement in the non-profit world and Knoxville community. Moreover, I'll note that while it is true only being a candidate does not meet the WP:POLITICIAN standards, the person is only not notable if they do not otherwise meet criteria for notability. That means that a candidate can be notable without holding office as long as they have independent, verifiable sources (example: Ocasio-Cortez, who was not necessarily notable prior to her primary win). This update is by no means exhaustive and I would greatly appreciate some help from the Tennessee project or similar groups.Senorred (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * delete the PROMO content and behavior is glaring. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment "including as a founding board member[14] of Community Health Alliance, which ended coverage for enrollees in 2016." Subject was a board member of a failed insurance company? Hardly promotional.Senorred (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article appears to have been significantly edited since it's original posting. It feels like the original complaint that this was a paid political post has been resolved. On the merits of the page in general, there appears to have been significant coverage of Hoyos (brief review of news articles from your favorite search engine) which satisfies WP:Notability requirements. Additionally, with her political involvement and the coverage she is receiving, I believe she qualifies as a major local political figure under the WP:Notability_(people) definition. Chaking32 (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC) 16:17, 6 Aug 2018 (PCT)
 * Comment I'd probably like to see a relist. The rewritten article is much better, but in poking around, I'm still not seeing a terrible lot of coverage outside of Knox County. If it gets deleted, courtesy throw it in my user space and we'll see what it looks like in six months.  G M G  talk  23:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry I'm new at this, I'm not sure what relist means. Though I will note that having mostly local coverage does not fail GNG, otherwise municipal figures like mayors, local journalists, and state representatives would not pass. The trick with local coverage is providing multiple, verifiable, reliable sources (which I did, though I only had a little time to put the rewrite together, so there's probably more).Senorred (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Having had a look at the updated article and the available sources, I still don't think she passes WP:GNG on her work before the campaign, or on the campaign-related coverage. Still a delete. SportingFlyer  talk  00:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you please be more specific? Were the most relevant stand-alone articles not from a reputable source? Were they not independent? Were the links not verifiable?Senorred (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still nevertheless a paid-for promo with just one intention by a banned paid user and his client. I'm curious why anyone with true Wikipedia interests would want her to have the satisfaction of knowing she can buy promo in Wikipedia for her campaign, and try so hard to get it included. Perhaps we should include that in the article about her... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is on you to prove that she paid for that service. However, here is a link to her FEC filings for spending, itemized and searchable. In the USA, not reporting campaign expenditures is a crime. There is no payment listed for Wikipedia editing, or any writing services at the time the article was created. I don't know the details of this banned user, or what other articles they wrote. However, suggesting that this person provided a paid service that was not reported on her filings is accusing her of a crime. Posting that accusation publicly on her page, without any verifiable proof that a payment occurred, is intentionally defamatory and libelousWP:LIBEL and a legal threat WP:LEGAL. Also, it's original research! Obviously you have more power than me as an admin. I hope you can believe I was acting in good faith to try to salvage instead of delete this page.Senorred (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone here is accusing you of not acting in good faith to save the page, but your libel and legal threats are uncalled for. The page was created four days before the creating user was banned for paid editing violations and regardless doesn't quite pass our notability standards. SportingFlyer  talk  05:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Putting notability aside, there is no indication that the subject paid the banned user. If the banned user did it for free, does it have to be disclosed? In this case, the subject has a federally reported record of campaign spending, and there is no evidence to indicate a payment was made. If Kudpung กุดผึ้ง made good on their suggestion above to post an accusation of unreported campaign spending, it is accusing the subject of a crime in this country, and would be by definition a legal threat. I am pointing out laws in this country, not making a legal threat.Senorred (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of them didn't have significant coverage of her, and a couple of the ones that did were primary. SportingFlyer  talk  04:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Partisan promo of marginal figure. Qwirkle (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no reason this article should be deleted. A concern was raised about the content, and you can easily see that has been resolved. Also, you cannot fault someone for the lack of balanced reporting in a small, conservative market. If there are sections the admin believes needs better citation, that can easily be marked with a request from Wikipedia next to the statement, as seen on several other pages.
 * Going from atrocious to bad is not “resolving” a problem, it is ameliorating it. That isn’t always enough, and isn’t here.
 * More to the point, if you are claiming that no good sources are available, that by definition means the article should be rapidly deleted, not put on life support.
 * Finally, very few disinterested new writers stumble in here on their second edit. Wassup with that? Qwirkle (talk) 14:43, 7 August 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.