Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield


 * 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 to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa. Consensus to not keep. Unclear with respect to redirect, but the "delete" opinions do not seem to oppose one.  Sandstein  21:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Theresa Greenfield

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

De-PROD without explanation. The subject clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. If she wins in November, she'll be notable. If other noteworthy stuff happens after that, she could become notable. As a party nominee for office, she is not notable. I'm perfectly fine with deleting every edit except the first one, when I made this into a redirect on Jan 31, 2019. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Redirect > 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa Djflem (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Delete candidacy alone is not enough to establish notability per WP:NPOL. -- puddleglum  2.0  20:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't delete she's likely to become the Democratic nominee and this is a major candidacy. All other major candidates in competitive senate races have pages. Smith0124 (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Likely to become the nominee" is not grounds for a Wikipedia article per se, and no, "all other major candidates" do not all have pages. Some do, because they were already notable for other things — Steve Bullock, for example, does not have an article because he's running for the Senate, he has an article because he was already the incumbent governor of a state. But people who weren't already notable for other reasons prior to their candidacy do not get Wikipedia articles for being candidates. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not automatically, no, but if they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria they do get an article, and in this case, as I've demonstrated below, this article's subject meets those criteria. CJK09 (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates for the U.S. Senate. No prejudice against recreation if the subject wins in November. --Enos733 (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete unless she is elected to the senate she is not notable. Being a party nomineee is not enough to be considered notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. As always, Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform for aspiring political candidates to maintain campaign brochures — a person has to hold a notable political office, not just run for one, before they're notable enough as a politician to warrant an article on that basis. But this makes and sources no credible claim that she has preexisting notability for other reasons, nor does it offer any significant evidence that her candidacy could be deemed a special case of significantly greater notability than most other people's candidacies. No prejudice against recreation after November 3 if she wins the seat, but nothing here is a valid reason for an article to already exist today. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article's subject passes the GNG - in addition to the large amount of coverage in state-level news outlets, significant coverage exists in multiple independent, reliable, national sources:  . Therefore, the article must be kept. Deletion is not an appropriate solution to whatever content issues the article might have. I hope to get a chance to rewrite the article in the next day or two; however, I can't make any firm commitments because that's backfired on me in the past when I've committed to too many rescues in the same time frame. CJK09 (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * National coverage mentioning her is not the same thing as national coverage about her, and not all of those links actually fall on the correct side of that distinction. The rule is not that a candidate automatically clears GNG as soon as her name has been mentioned in nationalized sources — even with a handful of such sources in the pocket, a candidate still does not clear the notability bar until that coverage has demonstrated that her candidacy is so much more special than everybody else's candidacies that even if she loses the election, her campaign will still be a topic of broad interest ten years from now.
 * Christine O'Donnell is the bar that a candidate's coverage has to match or surpass before she's notable just for being a candidate, not just "hey, look, her name's been in the newspaper X number of times". GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who passes an arbitrary number" — GNG does also test the sources for the context of what they're covering the person for, and deprecate some types of coverage as not notability-clinching contexts. Some coverage of every candidate's campaign in every election always exists — what doesn't always exist is a reason why this candidate is permanently more special than that candidate, and that's what has to be shown to make a candidate notable just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment There's a decent analogy to be made with this debate from two years ago, but there's also a pattern of federal races being of interest nationwide instead of just in Iowa or Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional District or whatever, and that should eventually affect how these kinds of discussions go. Airbornemihir (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a debate we are going to have every two years (about elections in the United States), where we have candidate-centered elections and a certain amount of nationalization of certain competitive races. But, I want to reiterate, the emphasis is on the race, not necessarily the candidate(s). There is nothing inherently notable about being a candidate for office, and even winning a major-party nomination does not lead to a presumption of notability. We have consistently stated (and described in WP:POLOUTCOMES that the race itself is notable, even if the candidates are not. Appropriate details about the race (such as the Washington Post article noted above), can be inserted in 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enos733 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Even accepting your distinction between notability of races and candidates, would you really say there's nothing notable about being a candidate? Someone mentioned Christine O'Donnell earlier in the discussion, and other examples of notable losing candidates such as Barry Goldwater (he was a US Senator, yes, but still) do exist. Airbornemihir (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Barry Goldwater was not just a senator but a five-term senator. Christine O'Donnell is notable because the level of national and international coverage she received as a candidate made her notable. But that requires quite a showing of coverage, basically that someone ran a campaign in a losing effort that will be remembered. The vast majority of losing candidates who run for office are not notable, and on Wikipedia, notability is not temporary, unlike the vast majority of these candidates. SportingFlyer  T · C  07:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete pure campaign spam, fails WP:GNG/WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer  T · C  07:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa, echoing Enos733. Merely being a candidate is not the bar for notability and the article is very self-promotional. --Dustinmacdonald (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2020 (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.