Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny O'Connor (Ohio 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 no consensus. Views are mostly split between "keep" and "redirect". The decision of which one to go for can be done outside AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny O'Connor (Ohio politician)

[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)

Is he in the news right now? Yes. Does he meet WP:NPOL? Not yet. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, this article should be redirected to the main election page until he wins an election. We do not typically create biographies for candidates until they become elected officials. Yes, his campaign is getting lots of coverage. But he does not yet, as an individual, have standalone notability. Marquardtika (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per @Marquardtika's rationale but only if he concedes or is declared the loser of the midterm election which just passed. Without elected office he cannot sustain notability based on totality of life experiences. That will change, I am sure, as he is very young. It's just a case of TOO SOON. Quis separabit? 19:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point--this is complicated by the fact that the election hasn't been called yet. He could still be certified the winner, and then he would certainly be notable. I don't know how long it will take for the counting of absentee ballots, recount, etc. Hopefully we get official results soon so notability is clearer here. Marquardtika (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really should not take more than two weeks at the most (I hope). Quis separabit? 19:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He cannot sustain notability you say? That is the funniest thing I have read today. Wp:ntemp says notability doesn't fade away. He also doesn't need to WIN the election to receive enough reliably sourced coverage to achieve wp:notability. Carter2020 (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carter2020: You misunderstand WP:NTEMP. It's true that notability doesn't fade once established; however, it has not been established in this case as he fails WP:NPOL. Getting coverage for running for office (WP:1E) is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Lots of people get coverage for running for local office but their long-term notability is zero if they don't get continued coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confused, Мандичка. Quis separabit? said "Without elected office he cannot sustain notability", but WP:NTEMP says once the coverage of a subject meets WP:Notability requirements, you are forever notable -- that notability doesn't need to be "sustained". So I understand the policy just fine, and Quis separabit? does not. As to the question on if the coverage of O'Connor meets the level for notability, I believe it does. I've never seen so much news coverage for a candidate, especially one who may have already lost. I'm still trying to get through the flood of news stories about the candidate and his campaign. Carter2020 (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to election page for now. If he wins or becomes notable in the future, article can quickly be restored from redirect. Nom pointed out this is the policy, so not sure why AfD was created. —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was redirected on July 30, but that redirect was reverted by the article's creator, so I thought an AFD was warranted. Marquardtika (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marquardtika: - gotcha, thanks for the explanation. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. It's WP:TOOSOON. Article can be created if he wins a recount, or wins in November. He's not notable otherwise. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates to the US house are not notable for that, and nothing else about O'Connor makes him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People (and the events they take part in), need to be seen in context. Normally, we wouldn't keep bios from people who loss elections for US congress. I understand that. However, this should be seen in the context of what is happening in US politics. Right now, these special elections are seen by WP:RS as highly significant because they are seen by WP:RS as a key indicator for the political environment under President Trump. Moreover, these events are significant enough, the people involved in them are WP:N, even if they lose. A simple question to ask is this. In WP:10Y, would someone who wants to study this period want these bios or not? We are here to be useful, now and in the future, and not to hold to some firm rules. Moreover, he clearly meets WP:N per the number of sources.Casprings (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that the OP cites an essay and not a policy with outcomes. He clearly has the level of national coverage over a sustained amount of time to meet GNG

I'm not sure Paul Hackett would pass AfD (compared to a redirect to Ohio's 2nd congressional district special election, 2005), though I see no reason to have that discussion now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone questions the notability about the special election, and it is always an appropriate outcome to redirect a candidate to the relevant election page. Any relevant biographical information can be added to the election page. --Enos733 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP He is only really notable for his campaign in the Ohio special election, but the coverage of him because of that campaign is blowing up the internet regardless of whether he wins or loses, because his run for that seat is being described as the bellweather - coalmine canary - referendum on what is to come in the November elections. Someone just needs to update his article to reflect the storm of coverage. Carter2020 (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ohio's 12th congressional district special election, 2018 for now; this can be revisited in November. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the election page for now. The article has a lot of sources, but not enough there to pass WP:GNG or WP:10Y at the moment. If coverage is sustained before the election we can revisit this. SportingFlyer talk 06:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. WP:POLOUTCOMES says he isn't inherently notable as a losing candidate (assuming he loses), but that doesn't mean he's inherently non-notable. He's gotten a decent amount of WP:SIGCOV; examples: [1] [2] [3] [4]. –IagoQnsi (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IagoQnsi: FYI, WP:POLOUTCOMES is precisely because the flurry of articles given to someone running for political office can typically be discounted as being notable for only one-event (WP:1E). This coverage will disappear if they lose and return to anonymity (unless they run again or do something else). Therefore the long-term coverage is not there and he fails WP:NPOL. Per WP policy, he needs to be notable for something beyond running for office. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:Poloutcomes doesn't disqualify O'Connor at all. Wp:1E says "the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered" which has been HUGE so far. And "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate", and both of those boxes are checked in spades. And Wp:Npol can't be "failed", and isn't applicable in this situation. (It would, however, apply as a KEEP rational if he is declared a winner, which hasn't happened.) Carter2020 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This reasoning is not how losing candidates have traditionally been evaluated at AfD. As I recently wrote for WP:Articles for deletion/Pete Stauber, the largest question about whether a candidate becomes independently notable "is whether the coverage of the candidate receives coverage that is unusual (often expressed in whether the coverage makes international news) or (less so) that the candidate is broadly portrayed as being an exemplar of a larger point by multiple national media outlets (either as what they stand for or [lesser] as being innovative in their campaign [either their ads or approach])."

WP:BLP1E is explicit in stating that the "significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." As Мандичка writes above, many candidates for elected office are low-profile individuals except in the context of their campaign for political office. Any details about the individual, polling, and top campaign issues can usually be inserted into the campaign about the election. --Enos733 (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IagoQnsi's reasoning. The subject is what we'd call in New York a "county clerk", an elected local political position. WP:POLITICIAN is quite clear that a local politician can be notable if there is sufficiently deep coverage, as is the case here: "Just being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources....'"(blue links removed, emphasis added). Losing a race does not erase notability as shown by major media coverage. There was saturation media coverage for the past two weeks; the President of the United States came to the district and attacked him by name; there is a rare re-count possible. Note well: Win or lose last Tuesday, he's also the candidate in this November's election. He's not going away, and a redirect to the special election will mess up the article for the fall election. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. O'Connor has received significant coverage for the special election, and he holds a local office. These two things together give him sufficient notability. Davey2116 (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, no evidence that coverage will disappear (remember he's running again in the fall). He passes NPOL pretty easily, and even if he failed it, NPOL exists to expand notability, not to restrict it. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the election page unless he wins now or in November. Not enough sources pass WP:GNG or WP:10Y at the moment. If coverage is sustained before the election we can revisit this. User:politicalfactjunkie2018 talk 20:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Receives enough coverage in the special election to meet GNG regardless of the result of the general election. Additionally holds a county-level position. These candidate AfDs are interesting, but I think GNG is ultimately met here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect to the election page. No notability outside of election, even so it fails WP:NPOL and other notability guidelines. As of now, he appears to be a failed candidate for a major public office. If/when he wins, then the article should be reopened. Redirect to retain article version history. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 09:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well developed and well sourced article. Meets WP:GNG. Antrocent (♫♬) 17:59, 14 August 2018 (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.