Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Whitney

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 delete‎. While not as clear as might be desired, there is a rough consensus that the individual doesn't not either meet NPOL or non-political notability. If someone would like me to userfy it so content can be added into another article, let me know. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Whitney

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The article is supported entirely by primary/non-reliable sources and routine campaign coverage. My WP:BEFORE search across across multiple major search engines found nothing beyond trivial mentions of the subject (much of what came up was in reference to different people with the same name as the subject), no reliably-sourced significant coverage that would satisfy the notabilty guidelines. While Whitney did receive a considerably larger-than-average vote percentage for a third-party candidate in the 2006 gubernatorial election, that would be a WP:BLP1E making him worthy of a merge/redirect rather than a standalone article. As a viable alternative to outright deletion, I propose a redirect to 2006 Illinois gubernatorial election. Sal2100 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Illinois. Sal2100 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject clearly passes WP:GNG, which is the standard for notability. Whitney received significant coverage from any number of Illinois-based and even national news sources including but not limited to [1][2][3][4][5]. WP:ROTM#Political candidates is an essay, not policy, and should not be cited as a reason for deletion.--User:Namiba 22:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The citations listed above are mostly local-based (NPR Illinois, Windy City Times, The Dispatch from Moline, Illinois) campaign coverage that would fall under WP:ROUTINE. The Atlantic article is more about an unfortunate misspelling of Whitney's name on thousands of ballots than it is about Whitney himself. The HuffPost piece is a run-of-the-mill campaign article pertaining specifically to the politics of the subject's home state of Illinois (and clearly marked as such). I am not seeing sustained significant non-routine coverage that would likely pass the Ten-to-twenty year test. And while it may true that WP:ROTM#Political candidates is "an essay, not policy", the essay is firmly premised on the policies WP:NPOL, WP:ROUTINE, and (at least tangentially) WP:DUE. It articulates and gives clarity to the application of these policies in regard to political candidates. Thus, IMO, the essay is a useful and relevant tool for discussion in afd's pertaining to candidates for office, even if not a basis for deletion in-and-of itself. So, while appreciating your participation and input, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the subject passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE is a section within the Notability (events) guideline.

Rich Whitney is not an event.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that Rich Whitney is not an event, but virtually all media coverage he's drawn is based on his participation in a particular event (a statewidede election, twice, in this instance) that per prevailing consensus, the standard coverage of does not confer standalone notability. Sal2100 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you cite an essay, WP:10YT, not policy. I will say it again: despite the personal preferences of certain editors to eliminate articles on candidates who do not win political office, there is no policy-based reason to delete this article. It very obviously passes WP:GNG, which is the " generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." If you don't like GNG, you should start a discussion elsewhere about it. WP:ROUTINE does not apply since, as has been stated, a person is not an event.--User:Namiba 21:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if an article passes WP:GNG, WP:NOT is still and always a relevant rule. Non-notable former candidates clearly fail WP:NOT unless they are notable beyond their campaign or are especially notable, and have in hundreds of previous deletion discussions. We can easily include some information about him on the pages of the elections he tried to win. SportingFlyer T·C 23:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto SportingFlyer's comments. I would add that WP:NOPAGE applies here as well. A good portion of the article is original research. If pared down to what can be verified by RS ciations (per my WP:BEFORE search), it would essentially be a stub. Given that there appears to little-to-no RS coverage of him outside of the two campaigns, per SportingFlyer, that info can easily included in the relevant campaign articles within the parameters of WP:DUE. No practical need for a standalone article. Sal2100 (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely failed candidate who only received WP:ROUTINE coverage any candidate would have received, and for a minor party. Failed candidates do not have any sort of de facto notability and since almost all candidates receive a base level of media coverage, need to show more than just coverage of their campaigns to be eligible for an article - otherwise we would be absolutely overrun with failed candidates. SportingFlyer T·C 20:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, we don't have to lose the information entirely - his positions can be adequately covered on the pages of the elections that he ran in. SportingFlyer T·C 20:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they lost — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if either (a) they can properly demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have secured their inclusion in Wikipedia anyway, or (b) they can demonstrate a reason why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than everybody else's candidacies. This demonstrates neither of those things, however.
As well, since every candidate in every election always gets campaign coverage during the election, such coverage is not the stuff of a permanent WP:GNG pass in and of itself — if the existence of run of the mill campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from WP:NPOL on the grounds of having passed WP:GNG instead, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would become completely meaningless and unenforceable. So campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough, if the person doesn't also have GNG-worthy coverage in other contexts besides the losing election campaigns themselves. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.