Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephene Moore


 * 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. For political candidates, the interaction between WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG is always a matter of debate. The delete !voters have strong and well-reasoned arguments here that coverage related to the candidacy alone is insufficient. But those arguments do not have consensus support. A number of the keep rationales are quite thin, which makes this "no consensus" rather than "keep", but sufficient arguments are made on the keep side - with sufficient support - that the coverage is sufficient for the purposes of WP:GNG. Mkativerata (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Stephene Moore

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Political candidate who will only become notable if they are elected. Article presently includes three Primary citations. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep – Major party nominees for the United States House of Representatives are always notable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * reply - Since when? We delete 'em all the time, just as we do candidates for other offices. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage evidences notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep She has been the primary subject of articles in Congressional Quarterly, Politico , the Lawrence Journal World , the Associated Press  , and the Kansas City Star  . Arbor832466 (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Appears to satisfy the general notability guideline, and WP:BIO, by virtue of coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources (such as those listed immediately above, and cited in the current revision of the article). MastCell Talk 21:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per MastCell.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Arbor832466 and MastCell. Frankly this nomination is bit perplexing. AniMate 01:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject of article has never held elected office--mere candidates are not qualified. And, being the wife of a candidate is not a reason for an article.--InaMaka (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I might support her, but as a mere candidate she still fails WP:POLITICIAN. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * reply - It seems to me that she does. Per WP:POLITICIAN "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." She has been the primary subject of coverage in CQ-Roll Call, Politico, NPR, the AP, the Kansas City Star, and the Lawrence Journal World (see my comment above). That most certainly satisfies the primary notability criterion, no? Arbor832466 (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those articles that you cite do mention Ms. Moore, but she is not the subject of the articles. There are over 400 candidates for federal office every two years that lose their respective races.  She has not every held an elective office.  Now, if she had even held state office then she would be notable, but right now there isn't anything there to distinguish her.--InaMaka (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * She absolutely is the subject of all of the articles cited above. She is in all of the headlines, and the stories are about her from start to finish.
 * Stephene Moore Faces Difficult Path to History - Congressional Quarterly
 * Stephene Moore runs in Kansas - Politico
 * Stephene Moore confirms she is running for Congress - Kansas City Star
 * Stephene Moore Denounces New Attack Ad - Associated Press
 * Stephene Moore announces bid for Congress - Lawrence Journal World
 * Stephene Moore looks to make history - Roll Call


 * I don't understand the confusion over this. Arbor832466 (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) @InaMaka: Are you contending that an article entitled "Kansas: Rep. Moore's Wife Running For His Seat" is not about Stephene Moore? Maybe you meant Stephene Moore is not the subject of "Stephene Moore runs in Kansas"? Is she the subject of "Stephene Moore Faces Difficult Path to History"? I'd really like a response, so I understand why you consider that she's "not the subject" of these articles, and why you think they don't establish notability per WP:BIO and the general notability guideline. MastCell Talk 22:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The point that I was making (and Location below makes the point better than I) is that those articles are about the campaign. They are not about her.  All candidates are mentioned in campaign articles, but that does not make them notable--if it did then all candidates would be qualified and the bio rules specifically disallow that.--InaMaka (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One other quick point: In the Kansas 3rd Congressional district race there is Moore (D) and Yoder (R), but there is also Jasmin Talbert, who is the Libertarian nominee.  Do we have an article about Talbert? No.  Why? Because Talbert does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just because Talbert obtained the Libertarian nomination and ALL of the cited articles mention Talbert.  Under the theory set forward by MastCell and Arbor we should just ignore the long standing Wikipedia rule that mere candidates do not qualify for articles and we need to write up an article about Talbert also.  Under that theory there should be articles on all obscure Libertarian and Green Party candidates even though they might not have held state or local office--as long as news articles mention them in the articles about the campaign.  This is an expansion of the Wikipedia articles rules that needs to be discussed in a Wikipedia forum much larger than this one.  By the way, the way that Wikipedia has handled Talbert is a model for how Wikipedia should handle Ms. Moore.  You can review that here:  Kansas's 3rd congressional district.--InaMaka (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability criteria should be applied evenly, particularly in the case of living persons. Based on InaMaka's criteria, the following articles should be deleted in addition to Moore's: Ashley Woolard, BJ Lawson, William O'Neill, Lois Herr, Paul Gosar, David Schweikert, Jesse Kelly, Rick Crawford, Ryan Frazier, Glen Urquhart, Steve Southerland, David Ratowitz, Matt Reichel, Joe Walsh, Bob Dold, Adam Kinzinger, Teri Newman, Scott Harper, Bobby Schilling, David Sanders, Larry Bucshon, Mike Pompeo, Andy Barr, Dan Benishek, Jim Meffert, Scott Eckersley, Ed Potosnak, Douglas Herbert, Scott Sipprelle, Randy Altschuler, Fran Becker, Nan Hayworth, Chris Gibson, Matthew Zeller, Tim Scott , Scott DesJarlais, Stephen Fincher, Bill Flores, Kesha Rogers, Roy Morales, Krystal Ball, Scott Rigell, Floyd C. Bayne, Patrick Murray, Keith Fimian, Doug Cloud, Reid Ribble. Agreed? Arbor832466 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that the rules should be applied the same in every article. Now, having said that let's point out that a misapplication of the rules in one article does not make the misapplication of the rules in another article proper.  Also, let's point out that I don't know the situation in all of the abovementioned articles (and I would doubt that you do either), but I can comment on a few of them because I was the person who originally created them or I have made edits to them.  For example, you list Tim Scott as an example where the article should be deleted under my clear explanation of the rules for politician bios.  I can state without question that you are dead wrong about the Scott article.  First of all, I created it.  Tim Scott qualifies under several different rules, but let's start with the rule that is in question in Ms. Moore's situation.  Tim Scott is a current member of the South Carolina legislature.  Ms. Moore has never held ANY elected office.  Mr. Scott used to serve on the Charleston County Council.  Once again, Ms. Moore had never held ANY elected office.  Mr. Scott is an African American who is the FIRST Republican African American state representative in 100 years of South Carolina history.  Ms. Moore has not ever held elected office on either the state or federal level therefore she has not made history with a historic electoral win.  Mr. Scott won a Republican primary against Strom Thurmond's son Paul Thurmond and Carol Campbell's son--progeny of two South Carolina political dynasties.  Once again, Mr. Moore has never held political office and has never beaten a member of a political dynasty.  Mr. Scott ran in the SC Republican primary runoff election one on one with Mr. Thurmond--creating a campaign of an African American versus the son of the one of the most famous segregationists in American history, a campaign which generated tons of nationwide news reports of the Old South versus the New South.  Once again, Ms. Moore has not held political office and she has not engaged in a historic, highly publicized election race such as the two in which Mr. Scott participated.  I could go on and on about the many, many reasons Mr. Scott is qualified and how Ms. Moore does not meet Mr. Scott's legacy, but suffice it to point out that Mr. Scott meets the criteria for inclusion in several different ways and Ms. Moore does not even meet it once.  To summarize:  (1) Scott, city council member, Moore, no office held; (2) Scott, current state rep, Moore, no office held; (3)  Scott, 1st African American Republican in SC state house in 100 yrs, Moore, no office held; and (4) Scott, historic election races against Thurmond and Campbell political dynasties, Moore, no historic races.  Once again, Ms. Scott has not produced any of the notable achievements that Scott has done and you have not provided reasons for her inclusion.  All you have provided is a list of articles that may or may not be flawed.  But clearly based upon a close examination of one of the articles you are comparing apples (a highly qualified politician bio (Scott)) to oranges (a non-notable politican who has never held political office (Moore)).  Are you trying to suggest that Ms. Moore's mere candidacy is equally historic and as widely covered as Mr. Scott's successful electoral campaigns?  If so then we need to review the historic electoral achivements that she has produced, but we are unaware of at this time--from the reading the article as currently written.  Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I'll remove Scott from the list. Thanks. Arbor832466 (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. I could go through the list above and point out why those articles are legit, just like I so completely did with Tim Scott, but I don't have to.  All that list is a list of potentially flawed articles.  You providing a list of flawed articles does NOT, in any way, make the Stephene Moore article more legitimate.  This list of articles does not suddenly make Moore notable.  It does not change that one bit.  All that list represents is a pile of other articles that need to be reviewed for deletion.  But many of them are just like the Tim Scott article--an article that is completely meets Wikipedia notability rules, but you were unaware of it.--InaMaka (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * InaMaka, I wasn't meaning to suggest that the existence of one article justifies another. Simply pointing out that if prior legislative experience makes a subject notable but significant national media coverage does not, there is a large swath of articles that should be re-examined. Particularly this close to the election, we should try to be especially vigilant to ensure we approach candidate articles in the most even-handed way possible. I'm sure you agree that it would be unwise to single Stephene Moore out for extensive discussion and deletion without at least attempting to approach similar articles for candidates representing all points on the political spectrum with the same level of rigor. Arbor832466 (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbor832466: Whether there is an election one day from now or two years from now really has no bearing on whether Stephene Moore's life experiece qualifies for an article on Wikipedia.  The rule does not state "that mere candidates are not qualified unless there is an election coming."  If you believe that there is a time that is appropriate for deletion for notability or not please tell me when timeframe is and please tell on what Wikipedia rule you base your timeframe.  Is the rule based upon when you, Arbor, want notability to apply (a fairly whimsical standard)? or it is 10 days before an election? 20 days?  30 days? 40 days? 100 days? 250 days? one year? What is the timeframe you, one mere Wikipedian draw this mythical line?  Should we re-write the Wikipedia policy on political biographies of notability to include a proviso that requires other editors to come to you and ask you, "Is it time now, Arbor?"  Each and every argument that you bring up in not based in actual Wikipedia rules.   This suggestion that there is some kind of "time out" for the election is your personal brainstorm--novel as it may seem--should be discussed in the proper forum and this discussion area is not it.  You might want to pursue this as a future policy proposal change and I think you should if you feel strongly enough about it.  But this novel idea does not make Stephene Moore any more notable than when you brought it up.  It is not relevant to this discussion.  The basic truth is that you believe that any of the names you listed above (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, RINO, DINO, Republicrat or Dempublican) you should work to have those articles deleted right now (but keep in mind just because you think an article should be deleted does not mean that your opinion is correct, please note the Tim Scott case that I noted above).  There is no special timeframe where we all go "Time Out" and wait for the election to be over.  Where in the Wikipedia rules does it say that?  Once again, the only logical alternative--since you have not provided evidence of her notability--is to merge the article into her husband's article since he is clearly notable.--InaMaka (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * InaMaka, I am making a sincere effort to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia by discussing the relative notability of Stephene Moore and other articles. Your aggressive, sarcastic commentary is making that exceptionally difficult. Please try to confine yourself to the issue at hand. If you have something you would like to bring up with me personally, please use User talk:Arbor832466, or better yet, keep it to yourself. Have a great day! Arbor832466 (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you are offended, but I did state anything that should upset you. I made the valid point that there is no timeframe where this issues should not be discussed.  Just because an election is coming does not mean that Ms. Moore's life experience is suddenly notable.--InaMaka (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Wikipedia sees lots of these types of articles come election time. I've read the sources and find them to be essentially routine election coverage (i.e. fails WP:NOTNEWS). Thus, given the varying interpretations of what constitutes "significant coverage" within WP:GNG, I think a strong argument could be made that the coverage of the subject is not significant. Location (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Location, I see your point, although I think the news coverage of Stephene Moore either meets or comes very close to meeting Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. However, I'm also concerned about deleting Moore's page a month out from the election while leaving Kevin Yoder's page intact. Can we agree to leave it up for now and then delete it in November if she is not elected to Congress? Arbor832466 (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there an exception by which "routine election coverage" does not establish notability the way other news articles do? It's a bit puzzling to me that the dedicated coverage of this particular individual cited here and in the article should be disregarded. MastCell Talk 00:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This coverage is not being disregarded. It is important information that needs to be incorporated into Wikipedia article about the actual Congressional race.  The place where this information should be placed is here: United States House of Representatives elections in Kansas, 2010, not in her article because the coverage is about the campaign.  Otherwise, why do we have the campaign article?  Otherwise, every single candidate would qualify for their own article.  For example, in the Kansas 2nd Congressional district the Democratic Party nominated Cheryl Hudspeth, but there is no article about Hudspeth because she does not qualify for a Wikipedia article. Why? Because Hudspeth has never held state or federal office and she does not qualify under a different criteria.  There just can't be articles on each and every candidate otherwise Wikipedia would have chucked full of articles about failed candidates or candidates that have never run for office or never held office before.--InaMaka (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced either. I would be more sympathetic to the routine election coverage if this were only local coverage, but it's national coverage. I would also like to point out that the sourcing on this article is much, much better than the one for Kevin Yoder. AniMate 00:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Delete both this and the Moore article, and wait for the election to be over.  The winner in the fall election merits an article here under our rules about the notability of elected officials in WP:POLITICIAN.  EnabledDanger (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. We're talking about the Moore article. Do you mean the Yoder article? Arbor832466 (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yoder qualifies independently of this particular campaign because she has served in the Kansas legislature for many years. However, there is an alternative.  Just merge the article into the Dennis Moore article.  Stephene Moore husband clearly qualifies and if she wins in November then we bring back this article, but if she loses then the small amount of information that is present on her today will be mentioned in the Dennis Moore article.  But as it stands now she does not qualify because she has never held public office on either the state or federal level and she does not qualify under a differnet criteria.--InaMaka (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That position strikes me as wikilawyering in the extreme. You're arguing that Yoder is notable because of his membership in a state legislature, while Moore is non-notable despite substantial, non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. That's sort of turning the notability guidelines on their ear. MastCell Talk 15:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not really discussing Yoder because he is clearly qualified under the Wikipedia rules. I noticed that Arbor wants to discuss Tim Scott and other articles and you want to discuss Yoder.  This discussion is about Ms. Moore.  What I am saying--and its not wikilawyering, that is just a red herring--is that Ms. Moore has never held elected office and she is not qualified in any other way.  Simple as that.  What I do notice from your comment is that you are making an attack on me and you did not, in any way, provide more evidence from Ms. Moore's life to make the case that she meets the political notability rules.  You did not point out some accomplishment that we might have overlooked or some other part of her life that would make her qualified.  You're comment is simply off the mark.  Please provide a reason for her to considered notable.  So far I have not heard one.--InaMaka (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean aside from the 8 or 9 dedicated pieces of coverage in independent, reliable sources and the supporting items from local news outlets? You seem to view notability as some sort of qualification that must be earned, but it's not like that. It's a simple matter of whether independent, reliable sources covering a subject exist. In this case, they do. It's not really a matter of opinion. You're correct in that I have some concerns about your editing. Your strongly expressed negative viewpoint of the subject, combined with your editing of her biography and your dedication to having this article deleted, do raise a bit of a red flag for me. But you're also correct that this is not the venue for me to pursue that concern. MastCell Talk 16:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just being a candidate is not automatically notable, so if it were just on that grounds, this'd be easy. But this person seems to have received a bit of press for running for her husband's seat; coverage that has extended beyond local...AP, Boston Herald, and politico.com. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Gobonobo  T C 20:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep According to WP:POLITICIAN, running for office is not enough to establish notability. However, WP:GNG supersedes that, and Moore's independent coverage is enough to meet that criteria. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2010 (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.