Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogananda Pittman


 * 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 keep. Consensus is that the arguments for meeting WP:GNG trump the other specific guidelines. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yogananda Pittman

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Only notable for being promoted to acting chief after the storming of the Capitol. I did find a few sources about her prior to 2021, but they were not substantial. I also don't believe that Chief of the Capitol Police is an inherently notable position. WP:BLP1E Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily meets WP:GNG as the first woman and African-American chief of the United States Capitol Police. KidAd   talk  01:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Prior to Steven Sund, I can't seem to find any other Capitol police chiefs to have articles of their own. No reason to keep her, especially considering the fact that she is an acting chief. Being the first [Insert race/ethnicity/gender here] is a poor ground for establishing notability here.-- Kieran207  talk  02:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , as an aside, do you consider Steven Sund notable? Natg 19 (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , That's a tough one, He might barely pass in my book. However, he has almost twice as much sourcing as Pittman. And also, Sund's coverage within those sources are more direct than in Pittman's case.-- Kieran207  talk  02:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Does not notability derive from ongoing coverage in reliable sources? Since when did notability depend upon holding a notable position? Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. She fulfills GNG and therefore is notable. (And for what it's worth, I think she should be notable as well, the Capitol riot was an extremely significant event, and replacing Sund with a black women in the context of that event is even more important than her being just the first black women in the post.) WestCD (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG. While it has been suggested that WP:BLP1E applies, there has been continuting coverage of her actions as Acting Chief. For example on 18 Jan by CNBC, on 19 Jan by Politico, on 22 Jan by wtopnews, on 26 Jan by People and CNN, and on 29 Jan by The Week. See: What is one event. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah but most of those articles are about things she has said not things she has necessarily done. It's different when most of her coverage is just comments she has made instead of actions as chief.-- Kieran207  talk  01:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The 18 Jan CNBC article is about the action of ordering the shutdown of the Capitol complex. . The 19 Jan Politico article includes more than passing reference to Pittman's career, the actions she has taken since becoming Acting Chief and the challenges she faces. . The 26 Jan People and CNN articles are about the action of appearing before a congressional hearing with the House Appropriations Committee. The People article also covers actions she took during the Capitol Riot, which are separate from the event of her being appointed as a result of the Capitol Riot. By my count 4 of the 6 articles quoted are about actions Pittman has taken, not just what she has said. Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC) updated Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional reason to keep: WP:BLP1E requires 3 conditions to be met (1. reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. 2. that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. 3. the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - see WP:BLP1E for full wording). 1 is not met, see above, so in consequence 2 is not met. 3 is not met because if the event is the Capitol Riot and its aftermath, then the event is significant, or if the event is Pittman's appointment then Pittman's role in that event is central, without her the event could not have occured which to my way of thinking is way above the threshold of substatnital, and in addition the appointment was well documented. Any one of the conditions not being met is sufficient for WP:BLP1E not to apply, but all three? Tango Mike Bravo (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For me, only the Politico article is a valuable RS about her. The Jan 18 article just mentions her as a passing reference, and the other articles mention her only in relation to the Capitol Riot, as they are congressional hearings or interviews about what happened during or near the time of the Riot. Natg 19 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and WP:NOTBLP1E. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kieran207's argument above. Kolma8 (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2021 (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.