Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvia Swayne


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to 2024 United States state legislative elections. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Sylvia Swayne
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Seems to fail WP:GNG, especially given the very minimal news coverage. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article nominated is Sylvia Swayne. Jaguarnik (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Alabama. North America1000 11:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get articles just for standing as candidates in future elections, but the article is based on a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and run of the mill campaign coverage of the type that every candidate in every election always gets — and thus it is neither demonstrating nor sourcing a reason to treat her candidacy as more special than everybody else's candidacies. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November 2024 if she wins a seat, but nothing stated or sourced here already makes her permanently notable now. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sexuality and gender. Skynxnex (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Redirect to 2024 United States state legislative elections. News articles with headlines of "first" and "make history" do not indicate run-off-the mill coverage. Some of the news coverage is secondary, such as and  and there is new coverage not yet referenced in the article, such as . Even if she does not win the seat, she is the first openly transgender person to run for state office in Alabama, thus being significant and making history and the coverage satisfying WP:SIGCOV of WP:GNG. Raladic (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed vote to Redirect to 2024 United States state legislative elections after the discussion. For now until she at least wins the Primary, it is probably WP:TOOSOON. Recommend a redirect for now to the elections article, until the actual main 2024 Alabama House of Representatives election article gets created, then it should probably redirect there or if she does end up winning the seat, then the redirect can be changed back to the article since it would then satisfy WP:NPOL and so if instead of deleting, we redirect, we don't lose the content for recreation, unless we move it to draft space. Raladic (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * There are an infinite amount of firsts in the world. Being the first person to do something does not automatically mean you satisfy WP:GNG. If it was that significant of a "first" then I would expect her to get in-depth coverage from national sources, but instead all she's gotten is some local publications and a couple Newsweek articles. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)
 * "First member of an underrepresented group to do a not-otherwise-notable thing in one specific region, when other members of that same group have already done the same thing before her in other regions" is not in and of itself a permanent notability pass. If she could claim to be the first transgender person ever to stand as a candidate for any political office in the entire United States, then we might be getting somewhere — but merely being the first in one state, when numerous other states have already had transgender candidates and even winners before her, isn't sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems like an arbitrary line to draw.
 * First member of an underrepresented group in a state that has a long history of suppressing underrepresented groups can in of itself be noteworthy, it doesn't have to be nationwide to be noteworthy.
 * The state of Alabama has a population bigger than almost 100 countries in the world, so if we use your criteria of a country as a function of "large population governed by a central governing body", there are plenty of those countries that are smaller that have never had a candidate. So, I believe it is just as noteworthy for a state (especially given the size and history of suppression of underrepresented groups), as it would be for a country. Raladic (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again: if this is such a notable first, where's the national coverage? Hell, if you're trying to argue that Alabama is more significant than 100 countries, I'd expect to see international coverage. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that Alabama is more significant than 100 countries, I said it was just as populous, so please refrain from throwing around WP:STRAWMAN arguments.
 * I'm saying that there are no formal criteria by Wikipedia that says it has to be about a country and that Alabama is not just a small town, so even state news is quite a coverage, but despite that, the Newsweek articles are national coverage.
 * My point was, that such a first is in of itself notable, just like it was included in the List of LGBT firsts by year and helps contribute to reducing Wikipedia's systemic bias on Gender and LGBT Coverage. Raladic (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "State-level coverage is enough" is not a standard I have ever seen applied on Wikipedia. That sounds like a new invention by you. I agree that reducing the coverage bias is important, but we shouldn't do it by giving articles to non-notable people. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * She has recieved coverage in Newsweek, which is national-level coverage: Alabama Transgender Candidate Reveals How She Can Win in Republican State and Alabama Could Make History With Transgender Candidate. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not an acceptable source, it's mostly a clickbait site of iffy quality. If you had other sources as well, we could use it; it alone is not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Allow me to push back on the example given where you link to the List of LGBT firsts by year for 2023. All other first time candidates listed on said article either won their seat, or ran for a national-level office. The only candidate on that list who ran for an election on a lower level, and did not win, was the first openly gay person to run for any office in the United States. To me it appears questionable if she should be on that list.
 * If she wins, by all means build an article. It would be noteworthy and historic enough to warrant one at that point in time. Sheeredit3 (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Political candidates for office are not inherently notable if they only receive coverage for being a candidate, like she has. It's also written promotionally. We can redirect to the article for the race if one exists and cover her adequately there. SportingFlyer  T · C  22:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete transgender person running for office, in the USA, isn't notable these days. If the person wins, we could build an article. This is just person xyz running for office. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why, exactly? How many transgender people have run for office? None in Alabama, until now. Alabama's first transgender political candidate at a time when Transgender rights in Alabama are restricted is, IMO, notable. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on sources, there are none outside the local area, indicating only local notability. Always keep a worldview when doing Wiki edits. Few if any mentions outside of the state, let alone the USA, don't really help the notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And let's move forward a bit, if the person doesn't win the election, what are they notable for, running for office? That's hardly notable. We'd need a ton of sourcing and long, extensive stories about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Normally, this would be a redirect, but there is no 2024 article for the AL House elections (yet). The article states that "Sylvia Swayne is an American politician." Candidates are not necessarily notable or not notable, but I do not believe Sylvia Swayne meets GNG or that Sylvia's candidacy will meet the type of test that candidates such as Christine O'Donnell, Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson), or Lar "America First" Daly have met through their candidacies. The citations and Google search results are entirely an instance in which this article is based on the same news story. The citations are entirely a candidacy announcement and a speaking gig. Finally, without assuming any bad faith, I am going to leave this essay here: An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not believe.. Sylvia's candidacy will meet the type of tests that candidates such as Christine O'Donnell, Pro Life (Marvin Thomas Richardson), or Lar "America First" Daly have met through their candidacies... I'm sorry, what? What does that comparison have to do with this conversation? What are these "tests" for notability, exactly? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Very few people are notable just for being political candidates, and it takes a lot more than routine local campaign coverage to demonstrate lasting notability. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Compare to the Gil Penalosa article, candidate for mayor than ran but didn't win. That's the level of coverage we'd need to see. This individual doesn't have that level of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And even that's not a great comparison: Penalosa had an article tried at least twice on the basis of his candidacies in elections per se, and got deleted or banished to draftspace both times — the article actually became keepable only when people started beefing up the sourcing to demonstrate that he already had preexisting notability for his work as an urbanist prior to running for mayor. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean, the individual here hasn't done anything notable before running as a candidate. Penalosa had something notable to write about. Oaktree b (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * These aren't my tests. They come from various policies and guidelines including, Notability (people) (with a specific focus on people involved in single events) and WP:GNG. Additionally, POLOUTCOMES notes that with the exception for substantial non-local media coverage most articles about local candidates/political figures should be redirected to the article about the election itself or deleted. It is also informed by essays, that while not policy, serve to provide some level of guidance such as Subjective importance.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per Raladic's point: She is the "first member of an underrepresented group in a state that has a long history of suppressing underrepresented groups".. including the group that Swayne is a part of. She's the first openly transgender candidate in Alabama (a state with over 5 million inhabitants). As I stated above throughout the discussion, she is receiving national coverage (i.e. Newsweek) prior to the election taking place, which is more than most candidates of state legislatures, or even members of state legislatures, have. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Newsweek isn't a RS, sadly. Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Because we don't recognize it as such: [] Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of this reliable sources link, thank you! This is a good resource to have. I did notice that it says that the consensus is to evaluate Newsweek articles post-2013 on a case-by-case basis, not that it is automatically unreliable. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. I'm not sure the article in this case helps notability. If we had other, better sources from that list, I'd give it a pass... That's just my opinion. I'd rather use good sources than iffy sources for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete The following excerpt from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Politicians illustrates why this article should be deleted as of this time:
 * ==== Candidates[edit] ====
 * Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having presumptive notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates in the 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as 2010 United States Senate election in Nevada. Note that such articles are still subject to the same content policies as any other article, and may not contain any unsourced biographical information that would not be acceptable in a separate article.
 * Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted. They are not moved to user space for fear of establishing a precedent that any premature article about an as-yet-unelected candidate for office can be kept in draftspace pending election returns, effectively making draftspace a repository for campaign brochures (see Articles for deletion/Siân Gwenllian.)
 * This is for state office, not national office, meaning notability will be further reduced. Should the candidate win, this article can be redrafted. Sheeredit3 (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is asserting presumptive notability, which we do not (yet) do here. This is very likely a booster page. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Booster page? I wanted to clarify that I am the user who wrote this article and I did not intend nor imply for it to be any kind of booster. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not questioning intentions. The observation is that the lede is asserting a notability (which doesn't exist) couched in terms of prominently announcing this person's gender identity. Others may differ here, but I don't even think the main source (a podcast) is admissible RS for the claim Swayne is a transgender woman.[15]. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * leaning Keep per WP:NPOL as a "local political [figure] who [has] received significant press coverage" and available statewide coverage, including the secondary commentary about the historic nature of her candidacy e.g. 1st transgender woman to run for Alabama House says cultural divide hurts all (AL.com, Aug. 7, 2023); Q&A with Sylvia Swayne, Alabama’s 1st transgender woman running for state office (AL.com, Aug. 16, 2023); this seems local: Sylvia Swayne runs to be first transgender member of Alabama House of Representatives (ABC31, Aug. 11, 2023). Other coverage with some limited biographical info includes Sylvia Swayne announces campaign for House District 55 (Alabama Political Reporter, Aug. 1, 2023). Beccaynr (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC) !vote struck per comment below Beccaynr (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that it's all the exact type of campaign related coverage we normally discount. I'm a strong advocate of redirecting this to the actual election and writing about her there, as per usual. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think these sources help show she is getting coverage that is distinct from the usual campaign-related coverage, because most campaigns are not reported as historic by multiple outlets; it is this secondary evaluation by the multiple sources, plus the depth of coverage in reliable sources that can help this article be developed in accordance with the WP:NPOL guideline that has me leaning keep. We have multiple reliable sources stating her candidacy is considered historic, so subjective opinions about whether this is true seem to carry less weight. There also seems to be nothing in the guideline that requires nationwide coverage or for her to be more than a local political figure, so I am thinking the article could be retained and revised based on available coverage and coverage that can reasonably be expected to continue. Beccaynr (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There are an infinite amount of firsts in the world, we can't (and haven't) given a page to everyone who's the "first" to do something specific. Just because some local outlets used that "first" as a frame for their campaign coverage doesn't make it noteworthy. If it was such a notable first, it would be getting national coverage. This reminds me of Kojo Asamoa-Caesar, who received press coverage as the "first Ghanian-American to run for U.S Congress", but when a Wikipedia page was created for him, he was determined to be non-notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's distinct from usual campaign related coverage - it's really just coverage any candidate who has any chance of winning would receive in the local press. I think calling it historic is WP:SYNTH as well. It's not as if there's large opinion pieces on how historic it is, the AL.com article just states that she's the first in the area as a matter of fact, the Political Reporter only calls it historic because they quote a campaign press release. As an aside, we don't have an article on the first openly gay person to run for Alabama statewide office (he lost in the primary)... SportingFlyer  T · C  21:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The first AL.com source includes, "Swayne will be the first transgender woman to run for state office in Alabama. She embraces that history but said it will not define her campaign." ABC31 says "A woman who's making history as the first transgender to run for the Alabama House of Representatives." So both sources seem to note her candidacy as historic, and the Q&A source seems to include some substantive questions that could help develop a typical article for a political figure.
 * And we did have an article for Patricia Todd (first openly gay elected official in the state of Alabama) created before she was elected in November 2006, for whatever WP:WAX is worth - the circumstances of each article and the available coverage are probably best assessed individually due to the variations that can exist. But yes, the Political Reporter source does not offer much beyond an endorsement from Patricia Todd and some basic biographical info and what the campaign says. Beccaynr (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did not include this in my initial vote, but I feel that for all the users mentioning historic candidacy, is Sylvia even on the ballot yet? It might just be too soon to make that determination.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the article more today and considered this discussion further, including this recently-launched candidacy appearing to be WP:TOOSOON, despite some available coverage about the historic nature of her campaign with some context; I have struck my !vote above, including because it was "leaning" at the outset. At this time, I think delete is appropriate. Beccaynr (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, for now. That certainly could change in the near future.Jacona (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment not satisfying NPOL is not a reason for deletion; NPOL elaborates presumptive *inclusionary* criteria, not satisfying NPOL does not produce exclusion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 2024 United States state legislative elections. This appears to be WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2023 (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.