Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Stitt (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Opinion is split between keeping (per GNG because of the news coverage) and delete/redirect (because of the routine nature of election coverage). This reflects a broader disagreemeent among editors about whether articles about major-party candidates for significant offices in two-party systems should be normally kept or not; but we'll not resolve this matter here. Sandstein 11:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Stitt

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

Kevin Stitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unelected candidate, fails WP:NPOL. Article was created in campaign preceding upcoming election, WP:PROMO applies. Cabayi (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The specific guidelines for politicians are not authoritative or definitive for determining notability, only the basic standard WP:PERSON is to be used to definitely determine notability. WP:N states that "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable". The sub-category suggestions are just rough guides -- the ultimate criterion is the basic WP:N, and each person must meet that criteria in order to get an article irrespective of how they come out on the specific sub-guidelines for politicians notability.
Since this guy has in-depth, substantial coverage from multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources about a major event (and additional coverage about additional independent events), he meets the criteria outlined in WP:PERSON.
I created the article because it seemed unusual that most of the other candidates had articles (even the ones who lost the primary), but this guy, who won the primary, didn't have an article. Upon further research I found that he does indeed have lots of coverage -- more than enough to warrant an article.
Please feel free to contribute to the article and help fill it out. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The losing primary candidates who have articles all, right across the board without exception, have articles because they have held notable NPOL-passing offices already. Not a single one of them has an article because they ran in but lost a gubernatorial primary — they have articles because they've been state legislators or cabinet officials or mayors of the state's largest city, not just because they ran for governor and lost. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are already eleven cites on this stub article, and that's a fraction of what's out there in google searches. He easily meets the WP:N guidelines. That's it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Could you explain, in detail, how this article falls under WP:PROMO? I don't see it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An article created about a candidate a couple months out from the election, but it contains endorsements and a partially uncited link to a scandal at his company. I will admit it's not the worst I've ever seen, but keep in mind WP:N is subject to WP:NOT. We could also move most of this information to the election page and put up a redirect. SportingFlyer talk 11:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't the way it's written, please feel free to change it. How it's written doesn't effect the fact that it's notable. Besides, it's all of about 7 hours old at this point. Help fill it out. Find some more details and put them in there. I don't want to have to do all the work. Sparkie82 (t•c) 11:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific. Please cite what in the article is "promotional". Better yet, just go ahead and change what you think needs changing. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I wrote (most of) this article and I have stated above that I never heard of this guy until right before I created the article, nor do I have any interest in the outcome of the election. I do feel strongly about keeping the article, though, and improving it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins. As always, the bar that a candidate has to clear to get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate is not just "campaign coverage exists" — campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election, so if the existence of campaign coverage were enough in and of itself to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL by winning the election first, then every candidate would always get that exemption and there would be no standard left to distinguish notable from non-notable politicians at all anymore. Rather, to earn an article without having to win the election first, what a candidate has to show is a reason why their candidacy is a special case, because they're receiving exponentially more coverage than most other candidates are also getting. What needs to be shown is credible evidence why even if he loses the election he'll still pass the ten-year test for enduring significance anyway — absent credible evidence of specialness, however, the simply normal and expected volume and range of campaign coverage does not reify into a GNG pass until after he's been declared the winner. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Oklahoma gubernatorial election, 2018 then undo the redirect after his likely win in November because he's not a young Latina Democrat. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This guy meets the WP:NPOL criteria. The WP:NOL guideline states, "people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Also, WP:BASIC states, "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below [i.e., without meeting WP:NPOL]." This guy easily meets the basic criterion because he has "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." And as a bonus he also has independent coverage from his role as the CEO of Gateway. Many of the other comments in this thread are citing reasons that do not have consensus and are not part of the WP:N guideline. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He does NOT meet WP:NPOL. Of the sources you cite only 2 are unrelated to his candidacy. One is a trade listing in bloomberg.com which is way short of the "significant coverage" required. The other, in news9.com I'm unable to see (they've got a GDPR block in place), which, if significant, would be a grand total of ONE source.
You contend that he's notable outside the context of his candidacy.
He founded his company in 2000. Did anybody create an article then? No.
The company got some coverage of a controversy in 2009. Did anybody create an article then? No.
Has anybody thought his company passed WP:NCORP and created or tried to create an article for Gateway Mortage or Gateway Mortage Group? No.
He stands for election in 2018 and in the run up to the election an article appears. And we're invited to believe that it's because of previously existing notability - even though, in your own words, you'd "never heard of this guy until right before".
If he's elected, you deserve credit for the article and it should be restored. Until then, give us credit for looking at the evidence and calling it for what it is - a biography of an unelected candidate created in the election period. Cabayi (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I already pointed out above, every candidate in every election always has campaign coverage — so if the existence of campaign coverage were in and of itself enough to exempt a candidate who wasn't already notable for other reasons besides the candidacy from having to win the election to pass NPOL, then NPOL would never apply to anybody at all anymore and we would always have to keep an article about every candidate. So no, there is only one way that a candidate's campaign coverage gets them over GNG all by itself as an exemption from having to pass NPOL first — it happens only when the campaign coverage has exploded so far out of proportion to what every other candidate everywhere else is also getting that he has a credible claim to being a special case over and above most other candidates. And no, you haven't shown that to be true here at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearcat, don't you also live in Toronto? I thought you did, so you must have noticed that, in yesterday's election for Mayor there were a whole bunch of nobodies on the ballot, who did not receive meaningful coverage. So, no, not every candidate always gets press coverage.

    With regard to the kind of coverage most candidates get, during their campaign... We don't cover the press coverage of 99 percent of candidates for the same reason we don't cover 99 percent of murderers. Sadly, from a statistical point of view, most murderers are predictably very similar. Most murderers were drunk, or on drugs, or were involved with petty crime, like robbery or drug dealing, or were brutal domestic abusers, or some combination there-of. This means most murders are already covered in the general articles we have on drug abuse, robbery, domestic abuse, etc. However, there are murders with exceptional circumstances, that trigger coverage of the exceptional circumstances. Cops shooting individuals who turn out to be unarmed, or innocent bystanders? Those are exceptional circumstances, and we cover them. Similarly, most candidates platforms, are some variation of memes floating around, all over. But when there is press coverage saying a candidate has an exceptional plank in their platform, something new and unique, that adds considerable notability. Saron Gebressellasi, for instance, called for public transit to be free, for everyone, IMO a platform plank so unique, and widely commented upon, that it alone lifted her close to our threshhold for notabilty.

    Since you also live in Toronto you know about failed candidates, like Sarah Thompson, who would have been one of those non-notable also-rans, if she hadn't leveled reasonable credible accusations that the incumbent used a photo-op to fondle her, and make sexual overtures to her.

    When press coverage of a candidate is exceptional, it may make them pass our inclusion criteria, even though they are likely to be an also-ran. Geo Swan (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly, I was referring to federal or state elections, not municipal ones — there is not a single gubernatorial or congressional candidate anywhere in the United States, for example, who could not show every bit as much coverage as this shows. But no, it's not actually true that any mayoral candidates in Toronto received no coverage at all — certainly most didn't get as much coverage as Tory and Keesmaat, but there was no candidate who really, truly received none. Even the candidate who had the media actively draw a full-blown cordon sanitaire around her still got some media coverage. (And as for Saron Gebressellasi, "offers a unique campaign plank" is not a notability criterion that lifts a non-winning minor mayoral candidate close to or over the notability line either — her sole basis for getting over the bar, as of today, would be if she could already have claimed preexisting notability for other reasons completely divorced from her status as a candidate. And no, Sarah Thomson didn't get over the line on the Gropegate allegations either: when she got tested at AFD, Wikipedia consensus put her over the line on her preexisting work as publisher of a newspaper, not as a person who might or might not have gotten groped by the mayor — the latter would just make her a WP:BLP1E, not a person who had earned permanent coverage in a worldwide encyclopedia.) Bottom line is that the volume of press coverage shown in this article is not "exceptional" for the purposes of getting him past our inclusion criteria — it's simply the normal and expected volume, not anything out of the ordinary. Passing GNG is not just a loose giveaway that we hand to every person who can simply show that some media coverage of them exists — it's a question of evaluating the depth and range of coverage and the context of what the person is getting coverage for, not just of counting up the footnotes and keeping everybody who happens to surpass two (a low bar which, as I've pointed out many times before, would mean we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour who got media coverage a few years ago for finding a pig in her yard.) GNG is not just an arbitrary number of footnotes: it tests for depth and range and context. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he is the nominee of a major party ticket for the highest office in a state. He meets the standard. He is also leading in the polls right now. -capriaf

Leading in the polls at any given time during the campaign is not a notability freebie for a candidate. People can lead in the polls during the campaign and still lose (see: Hillary Clinton, who no reliable poll at any point in the entire campaign ever showed losing) and candidates can trade the lead over the course of the campaign (see: Tom Mulcair, who would be Prime Minister of Canada right now if leading the polls at the start of the campaign were more determinative than leading the polls at the end of the campaign were) — so NPOL gets passed by winning the election, not by leading in polls during the campaign. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where in this article is there any notability-supporting coverage of his business career as its own thing? People do not get over our notability standards for businesspeople just because their background as businesspeople gets mentioned in the campaign coverage — they get over our notability standards for businesspeople only if and when enough coverage of their career in business itself can be shown, but there's no evidence of it present here. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per WP:GNG, there is plenty of coverage of Stitt in reliable sources. He will likely (to use the language of pollsters) be the next governor of Oklahoma anyway, so this exercise seems pointless from a statistical standpoint. -- Tavix (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updating to "Strong Keep" after even more sources has been added to his article. I have no doubts that he meets the standards for inclusion required by WP:GNG. -- Tavix (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PROMO, per nom.
Per WP:NPOL, a candidate must exceed coverage than expected for a campaign.
Per WP:GNG, a subject must be covered extensively by the media (though NPOL overrides this, as the coverage can't be solely WP:MILL campaign coverage.
I avoided creating this page myself per WP:POLOUTCOMES, which would typically argue that a REDIRECT to the election he or she is notable for is sufficient, until they win the election.
See the following AFDs for similar results to this:
Bill Lee – Tennessee businessman and Gubernatorial candidate, redirected to the 2018 election
Shawn Moody – Maine businessman and Gubernatorial candidate, redirected to the 2018 election
Tony Campbell – Maryland businessman and Senate candidate, redirected to the 2018 election
This article was previously deleted for not being notable (see this AfD discussion).
So please, do not let this article stay as is. The revision history will be maintained with a redirect, so in the likely scenario that he wins (though not guaranteed - see WP:CRYSTAL), the article can be restored to its current state.
Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redditaddict69, just about everything you said is incorrect. No evidence of wp:promo; wp:npol doesn't say that and it doesn't "override" wp:n; the previous ADF you mention was for a different Kevin Stitt not related to this guy; and the three other ADF examples you gave are not even close to the press this guy has gotten. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - nominator implies Stitt has only been covered with regard to his recent run for political office. Bzzzt.
  1. There is press coverage [1] of a 2009 incident that got him banned from doing business in Georgia, for five years.
  2. 2015 coverage of a ground breaking.
  3. 2011 coverage of Stitt's role in a SEC inquiry.
  • They are not sufficient for GNG, though they count towards it. If another 1-3 good and reliable sources can be found, this may be able to be kept. Otherwise I still stand by my vote to redirect (though I wouldn't be against merging some of the content that passes WP:V and relates to the candidacy to the election article). Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redditaddict69 you used the passive voice. Did you spend a minute to perform your own web search, for coverage of Stitt at non-campaign events? I never intended the four references I offered above to be comprehensive.

      Policy calls upon nominators to comply with WP:BEFORE, and take a good look for references not yet included in the article they are considering looking to delete. If their search shows the underlying topic measures up to our inclusion criteria, they are supposed to reconsider calling for deletion.

      Sadly, anyone with experience at AFD knows lots of nominators either never do a web search to determine the underlying notability of the topic, because they object to BEFORE, or made an attempt to do a web search, but were too inexperienced, or too poorly motivated to have done an effective search. Wikidocument don't require it, but I wish they did -- I encourage you, and everyone else here, to take a minute to do your own web search on Stitt. Geo Swan (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Geo Swan: I did, in fact, do a WP:BEFORE. On Google, I searched Kevin Stitt minus three words (gubernatorial, governor, and vote, to narrow down any results related to the election). These are my results, and clearly, I cannot find anything about him that has not already been mentioned here. I spent about 15-20 minutes looking for articles with different keywords, searches, phrases, and search engines and I stand by my previous vote, which is to redirect to the election. I know many nominators do not do a BEFORE search but even after I did, I found nothing. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • SportingFlyer, we have the General Notability Guideline, and we have a bunch of exceptional special purpose notability guidelines, like POLITICIAN. Special purpose notability guidelines, like POLITICIAN are exceptional because an individual can have their notability established through them for just a single exceptional notability factor.

    When the community has concluded an individual's notability is established through GNG it means contributors added up the notability conferred by notability factors. No offense but you seem to be making a common but incorrect argument. Winning a Medal of Honor, or a Victoria Cross, is one of those special purpose notability criteria. Traditionally we always consider such individuals worthy of a standalone article, even if they don't measure up to GNG. The common mistake is to argue that lesser medals, like the Silver Star, Bronze Star, are irrelevant. Like the notability factors I mentioned above, while a lesser medal doesn't establish an individual as notable, all by itself, it is a notability factor that adds to the individual's cumulative notability.

    Please understand that multiple contributors here claimed BLP1E applies. But BLP1E only applies to previously unknown individuals. When an individual has received earlier coverage, they can't, by definition, be a BLP1E. No, none of the prior coverage would establish Stitt's notability, all by itself. But, first, they establish he is not a BLP1E, so the closing admin should ignore all comments here that merely say he should be deleted because he was a BLP1E; second, we add notability factors together. Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Geo Swan I really do not understand what you're talking about with your medal analogies - Stitt did not win any medals and has not become a notable candidate because he was mentioned in two articles years before his election. Merely being mentioned in an article before one becomes a WP:BLP1E doesn't disqualify WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer talk 23:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just added another dozen or so sources to the article including, AP NEWS, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, etc. This race and Stitt has captured attention from national media and prominent national politicians because it's a tight race and the governorship may flip parties. Also, there was much more coverage of his exploits prior to the campaign, which I added sources for. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:04, 24 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_Stitt_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1254439572"