Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Goode

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. Courcelles (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Goode

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

Unelected challenger for Senate seat per WP:POLITICIAN also fails WP:GNG no significant coverage only passing mention on google search mainly dealing with her intension to challenge for seat. Mo ainm~Talk 21:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 21:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep Contrary to the nomination, clearly meets WP:GNG. NY dailynews blog, wten, [1], [2]. She had to submit 45,000 signatures so not like she just showed up one day. All that said, one event may well be a problem. Hobit (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All those links simply establish is that she is seeking the nomination - that's not notable. She'd have to have coverage for something else. Valenciano (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why? Hobit (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because passing mention of Goode and coverage of her intention to stand doesn't meet GNG which states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail... Also one of the sources you link to claims that she is a Little known Democrat Mo ainm~Talk 18:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general passing coverage is something like a sentence or two, this coverage is significantly more than that. Also though she was little known, it is unlikely she is now. Thus the reporting on her, thus meeting WP:N... Hobit (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do the sources you gave talk of subject directly in detail? If you take out the coverage of her intension to stand could you write a detailed biography with those sources? IMO no because she fails WP:GNG. Mo ainm~Talk 21:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N. None of what you ask for are a part of it. She is covered, in detail. There are non-independent reliable sources for her to build a detailed bio. So again, does she have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources? Clearly. Is there perhaps a WP:BLP1E problem? Yes. They are different and separable issues. Hobit (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it and she doesn't pass it. As the sources I have found claim she is little known, so how does that make her notable. She is getting passing coverage as a potential candidate which fails WP:GNG and also WP:POLITICIAN. If she does contest and win then she will be notable. If I declare my intention to challenge for the vote would I be notable? Not according to our policy. Mo ainm~Talk 12:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If major newspapers covered your challenge in detail it would meet WP:N (multiple reliable sources, not in passing). I think that has clearly happened here. Again WP:BLP1E might well be an issue. And yes, if multiple reliable sources covered a topic in detail for being "not notable", then by Wikipedia's definition of notable (WP:N) that topic would be worthy of inclusion. Hobit (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "She has announced plans to challenge Kristen Gillibrand". WP:CRYSTAL According to the article, she isn't even a candidate yet. There is at time of posting no indication of notability outside being an uncertain candidate. Peridon (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- She has filed at this time per articles I linked to. Hobit (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and article fails WP:POLITICIAN. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- She does meet WP:BASIC however. Hobit (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a candidate is not notable, being a candidate to be a candidate is definitely not notable. No other suggestions of notability. Valenciano (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - legally, she's not even a candidate until she gets on the ballot, which under NY Election law, is never a sure thing. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Almost ready for an article. Spevw (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know how to do all of this fancy formatting, but if you would read online, you'll find that she submitted 45,000 signatures, nearly three times the required amount to be put on the ballot. Today, NYS Board of Elections announced that there were NO challenges to her signatures meaning she will almost certainly be on the ballot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew.neidhardt (talk • contribs) 19:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC) — Andrew.neidhardt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you please find a citation for that? The official website of the NYS Board of Elections has no such statement on it. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if she does get on the ballot, that doesn't make her notable - by Wikipedia's criteria. In the world of politics, maybe. Here, candidates have to be worthy of an article for other reasons first. Once elected, yes (excepting minor positions, of course). Peridon (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I am a New Yorker. She most certainly IS ON the ballot right now, plus she leads a very important agency in the City of New York. You have articles of other bureaucrats and even of annual candidates who muck up a few thousand voters. Deleting Gail Goode's page would be very suspicious to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jro660 (talk • contribs)
- And what would be suspicious about it's deletion? What is suspicious is the article is created twice in a few hours by yourself Jro660 which was speedy deleted and then again by Andrew.neidhardt and you "both" forget to sign your posts. Mo ainm~Talk 16:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't create articles often so I don't know how to do a signature or sign it or whatever it's called I don't even know what that means. You have other candidates who have lost elections and primaries listed on Wikipedia. This is a candidate who has beaten back existing pressure from the White House who collected 45,000 signatures to run statewide. Considering every institution has been there to protect Gillibrand it's very odd that Wikipedia would rush so quickly to delete Gail Goode. Favoritism? Don't delete her page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jro660 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And why would I show favoritism, I am from Ireland and have never set foot in New York and have no wish too ever set foot there, the article you and Andrew.neidhardt created just isn't notable read our policy on this that I have linked to above. So drop the conspiracy bullshit. And you use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your posts. Mo ainm~Talk 09:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I too am from across the pond and have no political interest in goings on in NY or anywhere else outside my country (and also don't fancy going to NY - London's bad enough and I only go there on business). Gillibrand or whoever is an office holder and has notability from that. If Goode gets in, there'll be an article on her. In the mean time, only if she does something notable - by Wikipedia standards, not by your political standards - will she merit an article here. If you don't like Wikipedia's criteria, tough. Find somewhere else. We have no duty to publicise anyone from any party or affiliation. Peridon (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Simply being a candidate, or being on the ballot, does not make her "notable" in the eyes of Wikipedia. She needs significant coverage from independent reliable sources, and the general Wikipedia consensus is that coverage about an election is not the same thing as coverage about the person. If she defeats Gillibrand and wins the Democratic nomination, that would probably be a significant enough achievement to make her notable. But simply running - no. There are some news hits about her campaign, [3] but even those that do mention her don't seem to take her seriously. "... there’s a silver lining for Gillibrand: she has no strong Democratic opponent (sorry Gail Goode)." [4] "MSM Silent on NY Democratic Challenger for U.S. Senate" [5] The one mainstream article about her candidacy - the one from the New York Daily News - refers to her as "a longtime but little-known city lawyer". Little known is, by definition, not notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete based on WP:OUTCOMES, although I think we should keep in US Senate candidates who get on the ballot. COI notice: I am volunteering on the campaign of Kirtsen Gillibrand. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2010 (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.