Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Osborn

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. A consensus to delete this article is clearly not going to form between now and the election, whatever precedent and policy may have to say about how we ought to handle it. asilvering (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Osborn

[edit]

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

Dan Osborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though well-sourced to WP:RS, this entire BLP hits both WP:BLP1E and WP:ROUTINE. Thirty-three (33) of the 34 article citations relate to, or originate directly due to, the BLP's political candidacy. My WP:BEFORE is unable to discover unrelated coverage.
In cases like this we have, historically, followed the guidance of WP:POLOUTCOMES: "[candidates] ... are not viewed as having presumptive notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls"

  • ROUTINE: Campaign coverage for a candidate for public office is, by definition and through the way we usually apply this in similar cases, ROUTINE and where an article is formed exclusively with ROUTINE coverage, it fails WP:N. In cases of political candidates with BLPs, we always require WP:SIGCOV to be demonstrated through non-campaign related coverage or by application of WP:SNG
  • BLP1E: We must also address the question: "If this person loses his election, will he still meet our WP:N threshold?" With the only sources about him campaign related, he clearly also fails the BLP1E threshold.

Because this is an otherwise well-formed article, it may also be worth considering Draftiying it for a month (if he wins his election he would obviously meet the SNG criteria), but I'll leave it to someone else to suggest that if they feel this BLP is a redeemable case of WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC); edited 00:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy KEEP Osborn gained national reputation as union leader; a better BEFORE would have revealed that, and a better count of the references would have revealed that it's not 33 of 34 about Senate run, as claimed. His candidacy is anything but routine, so not BLP1E. Coverage of his candidacy is anything but routine, extensive significant IN DEPTH in NATIONAL/INTL press (as noted in nomination). Djflem (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"His candidacy is anything but routine" That's not what WP:ROUTINE means. Chetsford (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COVERAGE of the candidacy is anything but routine (just as candidacy is anything s anything but routine) It is INDEPTH and SIGNIFICANT in NYTimes, Guardian, Rolling Stone, Newsweek, USA Today, The Nation, Washington Post plus more, but a REF BOMB isn't needed here.Djflem (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, yeah, that's not what ROUTINE means here. We generally use it to mean coverage that would be customary and expected. All political candidates are the subject of coverage related to their candidacy. We routinely delete these articles if they haven't received any other coverage other than coverage arising out of their candidacy. See WP:POLOUTCOMES for an explanation, and examples, of this. Chetsford (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is not routine campaign coverage: it is not customary, it is exceptional, if not extraordinary. Djflem (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Nebraska. Candidates rarely meet WP:NPOL, and the coverage is routine campaign coverage. The sources around the strike might be something, but I'm not seeing it as in-depth about Osborn himself to meet GNG. If he wins in November we can re-assess. Bkissin (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Union leader could be notable, but I'm not showing much coverage about him during the strike, mostly about the strike itself. Running for office and being in the navy aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Svitek, Patrick (October 4, 2024). "In Nebraska, independent Senate candidate gives GOP a competitive race". The Washington Post. Osborn gained national prominence after he led the 2021 strike as president of the local Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union. Djflem (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kaplan, Juliana (November 7, 2021). "Meet the 18-year Kellogg's veteran who's leading workers in a month-long strike that's still going: 'What's at stake here is the American middle class'". Business Insider. Retrieved February 18, 2024. Djflem (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While great to fill in biographical details this, again, is coverage directly arising out of the candidacy. Our longstanding precedent is to accept as N unelected candidates only if they have SIGCOV unrelated to the candidacy. Chetsford (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chetsford I'm not really sure that's accurate. There's all sorts of exceptions that are imaginable (eg unelected politican who is the sole candidate in a seat or an unelected candidate subject to assassination). Notability is whether or not they satisfy the GNG - trying to make non-elected status an exclusionary measure will only turn up an inevitable list of exceptions. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I'm not really sure that's accurate." I am sure that's accurate. While the hypothetical scenarios you explained are interesting they are, in fact, hypotheticals. I'm not arguing as to whether our precedent is right or wrong, merely that we have -- across multiple articles -- long considered campaign coverage ROUTINE. And that's simply a fact. It's not about whether a candidate is unelected or elected, the question is whether or not their only SIGCOV is in campaign-related media. Many unelected candidates do have articles because they have been covered independent of coverage that would have existed if not for the campaign. That simply does not apply here. It's fine for people to make an WP:IAR argument but that's the only argument being made. Chetsford (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that removing a page of neutral, non-propagandistic information about an American election while that American election is happening would be a disservice to the world. Yeah, call this an IAR !vote if you'd like, but I think the way we handle political candidates is more than a bit silly in general, and in this particular case — a non-Republican seen as having a shot in Nebraska — even more so. It's not a routine campaign, in the vernacular sense of the word, and stretching the Wikipedian jargon of WP:ROUTINE to dismiss all coverage of a candidacy is cutting off our nose to spite our face. XOR'easter (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. We can revisit this after 2024 US elections are over. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can you clarify the policy basis of your !vote? I may not be familiar with a policy that allows us to retain not notable BLPs in mainspace if there's an election scheduled in the USA. Does this policy apply just to USA elections or are there other countries it applies to, as well? Chetsford (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot reject WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS type of events that have resulted in the creation of this article, but I see some potential in this subject and cannot reject the possibility that it will undoubtedly meet WP:GNG soon. That's why I said we should wait. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I cannot reject WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS type of events that have resulted in the creation of this article, but" There's not really a "but" if you accept this as a case of unexceptional BLP1E. BLP1E is a policy. "it will undoubtedly meet WP:GNG soon" I see. Can you clarify the policy that allows us to uniquely keep this non-notable article in mainspace instead of Draftifying it like we do all other articles that might meet GNG in the future, but don't currently? Chetsford (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC); edited 08:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see this suggestion as a practical one - in the last few weeks before a US general election, it is quite difficult to delete a candidate for statewide office - see the discussion of WP:Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield (ultimately kept). Passions are high in the run up to an election and (as long as the information is verifiable), we can more properly adjudicate whether a stand-alone article is warranted for an individual who is involved in a single-event (because some candidates for public office were not notable prior to the election and not notable after). That said, in general, candidates who are not notable prior to an election run should be redirected to the page about the election, where some information about the candidate and campaign can exist (see WP:POLOUTCOMES.) - Enos733 (talk) 04:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Weak Keep) ... not BLP1E due to the Kellogg's strike and the election ... I think this article needs more work and then after people have had the time to add more sources related to the strike, this could be revisited at a later date. Also I disagree that the election coverage is routine, independent candidates don't generally get this much attention. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: You said "I think this article needs more work and then after people have had the time to add more sources related to the strike, this could be revisited at a later date"; did you mean to !vote Draftify? Chetsford (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or did you mean keep, as you ivoted, since its not BLP1E based on prominence in Kellogg's strike, since candidacy coverage is not routine, and since AFD is not clean up? Djflem (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford:@Djflem: I don't think it needs to be moved to draftspace. It's a complete article, but needs more sources showing the extent of his involvement with the strike. I believe there is a template someone can add saying it needs more sources. Still voting keep. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 09:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable American labor leader who passes general notable guideline requirements WP:GNG. The subject has significant coverage WP:SIGCOV that is in depth and from different national publications indicating that he is an important labor leader. He has received major coverage now due to two events. Passes all requirements for being a notable labor leader per WP:BIO. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is not only known for his senate bid, seeing as there was an article about him during his labor strike [1]. I also disagree with your argument that there is only routine campaign coverage. Some of the coverage is routine, yes, but a full-length, independent article like [2] is significant. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 16:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Leaving aside WP:NEXIST and the RS coverage that predates the Senate run that satisfies notability as a union leader (eg [3], [4] [5]), I have to echo the comments from XOR'easter. There's actually more damage to Wikipedia's reputation by deleting subjects engaged in high-profile politcal campaigns than leaving a possibly unnotable candidate undeleted until after the election and then conducting a notability discussion. FWIW, I do not think there is a clear community consensus around the application of ROUTINE to elections - it really depends on context and the guideline itself does not contain the word election. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "damage to Wikipedia's reputation" Supposed "damage to Wikipedia's reputation" is not a reason to keep or delete an article. Chetsford (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a political campaign is not one event for the purposes of WP:BLP1E, the RS cover several events, not just him becoming a candidate. Barack Obama is notable despite the article entirely being about the event of "being a politician", just like this individual is notable despite the article being entirely about the event of "being a candidate". POLOUTCOMES only states that candidates don't have presumptive notability, not that they are presumed non-notable. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sometimes we need to stop obsessing over specific rules and just take a step back to realize how ridiculous these AfD requests can be RyanAl6 (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep– WP:NPOV supersedes other rules. Wikipedia is widely used as a news and information source; to remove an article on a candidate in such a major election would fundamentally mean a bias in Wikipedia's content as accessed by people during the election. If Osborn loses it's a different matter and redirecting can then be considered depending on long-term historic notability. But first and foremost we need to be aware of our duty to provide neutral encyclopedic coverage, and this includes coverage of ongoing elections.

This problem of partisan AfD nominations during ongoing elections has been going on for a long time now. Happened with the 2020 US Senate election in Iowa too. I would support the creation of a guideline that proposed deletion/redirection of candidates in elections with significant media coverage should always wait until after the election in question to stop this sort of AfD happening again and again in future. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. An independent candidate presenting a strong challenge to an incumbent candidate for national office in a state the incumbent's party has historically won by significant margins is quite notable. If the challenger loses, I agree the article should be redirected to the election page. With that in mind, I would like to propose the Ross_Perot page be redirected to the 1992_United_States_presidential_election page. Other than running for President, the man was very non-notable. 100.8.239.119 (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree to the Perot proposal
Perot is notable for a few other things besides the 1992/1996 elections, such as his work as a private citizen with the Laotian and North Vietnamese (later Vietnamese) government to free POW's and MIA's that were left in Vietnam at the end of the war which started in 1969 during the Nixon administration when he visited Laos and continued until his historic 1992 bid for President, which led to Vietnam's Foreign Ministry making a deal with Perot for him to become its business agent if diplomatic relations were normalized between the US and Vietnam.
This also includes Perot's private investigations of, and attacks upon, defense department official Richard Armitage (b. 1945), as well as Perot's support of "Throw the Hypocritical Rascals Out" founded by Jack Gargan (1930-2018).
The evidence that has been provided is more then proficient to declare the Wikipedia page of Ross Perot as notable ~ HistorianL (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mistake "notable" for "important". It's about coverage. DS (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To delete information about a candidate for a US Senate election in the weeks before the election would violate NPOV and be a disservice to voters. Candidates for major offices should qualify as notable, because providing useful information is a key point of Wikipedia. Narayansg (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Osborn&oldid=1252548339"