Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Graham Jones (politician)

Notability of candidates; the election will change everything
DGG raises a point about whether candidates for major office are notable. I started to reply with the following:


 * What Ironholds brings up is what I struggled with as I wrote my !vote. My gut feeling was weak keep, but the sources didn't turn up when I searched. I looked at WP:POLITICAN, and it says "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.'" At the end of the day, I didn't see any argument to keep the article beyond WP:INTHENEWS or WP:ATA, and both of those are arguments to avoid.

I don't think anybody in this discussion disagrees with the assertion that Jones is standing in the UK general election. What is the issue is whether that alone is enough notability for an article, especially since he doesn't clearly pass the general guidelines, which require significant coverage in independent reliable sources.

Since the future election seems to be pivotal in whether he will be notable, let's consider the outcomes of this AfD, what happens in the election, and what happens to the article after the election. Let's assume the keep/delete is only on the basis of his candidacy and that WP:GNG is never met.

The green boxes (top left, bottom right) are the "Yes, we guessed right" quadrants of the grid. Through the lens of hindsight, nobody would argue that the article wound up in the status it should be.

The red boxes (bottom left, top right) are the "Oops, we guessed wrong" portion of the grid.
 * If we guessed wrong and deleted the article, then procedurally we don't have a problem. Since Jones will have a new claim for assertion ("Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" are notable by definition), it is easy to create the new article—it is not subject
 * If we guessed wrong and kept the article (and if enough secondary sources don't emerge to qualify him as generally notable), then the article can (likely will) be renominated for deletion. The problem in this case will be the flood of arguments saying to keep it, because we kept it before.

My bottom line point is this: what happens in the general election will likely overshadow the results of this AfD. If we keep the article and he does not get elected, the article should be renominated for AfD without prejudice. If we delete the article and he does win the election, the article should be recreated with all due haste.

So, this AfD is really about the situation in the article right now. WP:POLITICIAN says he isn't notable right now, and while it is a consensus guideline, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." If other editors disagree with that guidelines, that's an issue for another talk page; I trust that my fellow editors will act with common sense here, but I'm also going to, regardless of the outcome of this AfD, make a point to revisit this subject after the election and see what the situation is then. —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fred, I'm in the horns of more or less the same dilemma you have. I'm thinking that a redirect is a good way to split the difference - it would make re-creation very easy if he should win. I do want to note one objection, however: in the case of notability criteria, guidelines are often the distillation of AfD results. To overturn a notability guideline, it's valid to voice an opinion contrary to it in individual AfD discussions, and wait to win enough AFD discussions that you can argue consensus is going your way. That is why where individual articles are concerned (for just about everything except really bizarre cases), the AfD/DRV discussions are controlling, and not to be overturned except in those fora. Ray  Talk 23:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * With US, UK and Australian elections this year, I expect this is the beginning of a flood of candidate articles. At the moment, I'm inclined to agree with Ray's suggestion of redirecting non-notable candidates. We would then only keep candidates who are demonstrably notable under WP:GNG. I have difficulties with taking a "keep all" approach to these articles - after the election concerned we'd be left with unattended articles on a raft of failed political candidates.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)