Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Bailey (politician)
- 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 2022 Georgia lieutenant gubernatorial election#Democratic primary. TigerShark (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Charlie Bailey (politician) (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)
WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and a candidate must demonstrate either that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway (i.e. Cynthia Nixon), or a credible reason why his candidacy can be seen as much, much more nationally significant than other people's candidacies such that people would still be looking for information about it a decade from now even if he loses. But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is referenced to a mix of primary sources that are not support for notability at all and purely run of the mill local campaign coverage of the type that every candidate in every election always gets, thus not marking him out as more special than everybody else.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins, but nothing here is already enough to earn him a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete unelected candidates for public office are not default notable for such, and the coverage is not to the level to justify an article on an unelected candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to 2022 Georgia lieutenant gubernatorial election#Democratic primary. Per nom., not notable per WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, so not presently qualified for a standalone article. His prominent standing as his party's nominee in the upcoming statewide election does warrant a redirect, however. Also per nom., no prejudice against the article's re-creation should he win the general election in November. Sal2100 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Bailey is twice the nominee of a major political party for statewide office. Only about 2% of the vote kept him from winning in 2018. Is it truly the case that he has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Such would establish general notability, and per the end of the WP:POLITICIAN guideline, make him notable as a politician. —ADavidB 04:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show campaign coverage, and thus claim that WP:GNG exempts them from having to pass WP:NPOL — but if that were how it worked, then NPOL would be entirely unenforceable, because nobody would ever actually have to be measured against it at all anymore. So no, a non-winning candidate does not get an article just because run of the mill campaign coverage exists: as I noted in my nomination statement, candidates get articles only if they (a) had another claim of notability for some other reason that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) can show a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as much, much more important and special than most other people's candidacies. And no, running twice isn't more notable than running once, and coming close but still losing isn't more notable than losing by a wider margin, either. Bearcat (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- How was it established that this state-wide nominee's coverage is only 'run of the mill'? If this is so far an assumption based on the current article status, my comment serves as an invitation for editors to look for and include more significant coverage. The article is only a week old. —ADavidB 16:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Being a candidate for statewide office isn't any more "inherently" notable than being a candidate for local office either — candidates for statewide office still always get campaign coverage by definition, and thus what I said before about how nobody would ever have to be measured against our inclusion standard for politicians if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt them from it still applies the same way. Simply put, a candidate only gets to claim notability on the basis of campaign coverage itself if that campaign coverage expands to a volume and geographic range far beyond what would merely be expected to exist, because the test for a non-winning candidate requires him to demonstrate that he's so much more notable than most other candidates that even if he loses he would still pass the people will still be looking for information about his campaign in the year 2032 test anyway.
If a person is running for statewide office, then campaign coverage within the state where he's running for office is merely expected to always exist, and is thus run of the mill — if a candidate in Georgia breaks out to such a degree that he starts getting covered in California and Iowa and Michigan, then he might be getting somewhere, but if he's only getting coverage in Georgia then that coverage is not demonstrating that he's more notable than other candidates. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)- I disagree with treating major-party-elected statewide nominees as 'local', but acknowledge that is how things are being done. —ADavidB 02:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Being a candidate for statewide office isn't any more "inherently" notable than being a candidate for local office either — candidates for statewide office still always get campaign coverage by definition, and thus what I said before about how nobody would ever have to be measured against our inclusion standard for politicians if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt them from it still applies the same way. Simply put, a candidate only gets to claim notability on the basis of campaign coverage itself if that campaign coverage expands to a volume and geographic range far beyond what would merely be expected to exist, because the test for a non-winning candidate requires him to demonstrate that he's so much more notable than most other candidates that even if he loses he would still pass the people will still be looking for information about his campaign in the year 2032 test anyway.
- How was it established that this state-wide nominee's coverage is only 'run of the mill'? If this is so far an assumption based on the current article status, my comment serves as an invitation for editors to look for and include more significant coverage. The article is only a week old. —ADavidB 16:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show campaign coverage, and thus claim that WP:GNG exempts them from having to pass WP:NPOL — but if that were how it worked, then NPOL would be entirely unenforceable, because nobody would ever actually have to be measured against it at all anymore. So no, a non-winning candidate does not get an article just because run of the mill campaign coverage exists: as I noted in my nomination statement, candidates get articles only if they (a) had another claim of notability for some other reason that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) can show a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as much, much more important and special than most other people's candidacies. And no, running twice isn't more notable than running once, and coming close but still losing isn't more notable than losing by a wider margin, either. Bearcat (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect/Merge to 2022 Georgia lieutenant gubernatorial election#Democratic primary for reasons stated by Sal2021, adding more from this article there. —ADavidB 02:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Moderate Keep. Due to him actually winning the Democratic run-off, he's garnered a lot of coverage from local stations and reputable papers, about how he will compete in the finals, plus an Axios article on his views on abortion. A redirect or merge is another alternative, although it does not make the most sense since he has ran for two elections, and a single page can't exactly redirect to two pages at a time, ya know. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 04:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's true that a single page can't be redirected to more than one article. In this case, redirecting to 2022 Georgia lieutenant gubernatorial election#Democratic primary would be the most appropriate course of action (if redirect is the result of this discussion) because it is the higher office sought by the subject. That, I believe, is the standard procedure for redirecting politicians who have run for multiple offices. That's why it's the particular target being proposed. FYI and FWIW. Sal2100 (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- His background in the previous election should also be brought up in the redirected article if we're going that direction. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 20:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's true that a single page can't be redirected to more than one article. In this case, redirecting to 2022 Georgia lieutenant gubernatorial election#Democratic primary would be the most appropriate course of action (if redirect is the result of this discussion) because it is the higher office sought by the subject. That, I believe, is the standard procedure for redirecting politicians who have run for multiple offices. That's why it's the particular target being proposed. FYI and FWIW. Sal2100 (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: While exceptions to WP:POLITICIAN do exist (see Christine O'Donnell), I do not see anything here that is indicative of such notability. — BriefEdits (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2022 (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.