Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell (Second nomination)

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. - Mailer Diablo 16:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Farrell

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell, comments along the lines of "come back if she's elected". She wasn't. This is not the same content (so not a G4 speedy), but there is still no claim to notability other than an unsuccessful candidacy in an election. Per WP:BIO we keep successful candidates, not failed ones. Debate is currently going on in three separate places, so hopefully we can collect it all here. Guy 20:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to disrupt this AfD? Not hardly. It just makes no sense to have multiple simultaneous votes on the status of this article. Do you agree or disagree with that?--Francisx 23:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If an admin opens a new AfD, while specifically noting that "Debate is currently going on in three separate places, so hopefully we can collect it all here," I'm going to go with the admin. His action has rendered the DRV moot. As for pulling AfD tags off articles, you can get blocked for that sort of thing. There's even templates about it (e.g. {{drmafd4}}). --Aaron 23:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't see the note, nor did I know that the person who added the AFD tag was an admin. As WP is supposed to be friendly to newbies, I expect that you'll pardon my oversight. Thanks!--Francisx 23:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, come on, FrancisX, you've been editing for more than a year! (You're newer than me, I guess, but still...) --Aaron 00:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then why did you label me a vandal [[1]]? In my not-quite-a-year of editing (your math is off), did you notice a long, striking pattern of vandalism? You can't have it both ways. Am I an experienced user who should know better or a disruptor?--Francisx 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I used that tag because (a) as a courtesy to the admins because it provides them with quick links to relevant pages (while not actually labeling anyone as a "vandal" in the text of the page) and (b) because removal of AfD tags is considered vandalism by Wikipedia policy (see "avoidant vandalism" on Wikipedia:Vandalism; age of account and number of edits has nothing to do with it. --Aaron 00:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Where did "newbie" come from? Your contribs show you've been on Wiki since Dec 05, you uploaded Farrell's image, and you've been active on many political articles. Sorry, couldn't help but notice that, since you accused me of having a pony in this race because I oppose admins circumventing community consensus on IRC chat. Sandy 00:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, chronologically I may not be a newbie, but I haven't exactly been immersed in administrative or backroom protocol either. I've made a relatively small number of edits, almost all of whom have been superficial and minor.--Francisx 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete for failing WP:BIO and WP:C&E. While technically only a proposal, failure to adhere to WP:C&E has already been used as a criterion to delete the articles of other legitimate House candidates. I don't see where "Well, this race is too important" is a particularly compelling argument. The entire point of WP:C&E was to stop this sort of "some animals are more important than others" creation of articles for people who haven't even won election yet. --Aaron 22:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to abstain due to SandyGeorgia's creation of Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006, for which multiple people ought to be awarding her barnstars. --Aaron 18:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Glad you noticed: that's the work that should have been done to begin with. I now know more about both candidates than I ever wanted to know about either of them. Sometimes it's just easier to do it yourself, I guess. Nonetheless, process should have been followed by those who wanted the article: why did *I* have to be the one to write, reference and clean up all those articles? As for process, I wonder if the article will really be deleted is she loses? These guidelines need to be examined: Farrell now has an article, while two other candidates in the same election who haven't achieved notability don't, and one was AfD'd. There is still nothing notable in Farrell's own article, which can't be covered in the election article, so I don't really understand why we bother with process, guidelines, AfDs, and so on. IRC chat must be the way to go! Sandy 18:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on C& E, a proposed guideline, "Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written." Farrell is notable enough for an article. FloNight 00:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:BIO:

People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them.

...
  • Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage. Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.
...
  • Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
According to WP:C&E:

Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written.

Random candidates for House seats do not meet such criteria. That Farrell is especially competitive in this particular election (one in which the incumbent has held the seat for what will soon be 20 years) has led to national-level news coverage[2][3][4][5]. This makes her qualify under WP:BIO standards listed above. Simões (talk/contribs) 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 497 current news articles listed in Google News.[6], many of which are national (US News & World Report, Washington Post, LA Times) and even international (The Guardian). This is a top 10-race, Farrell has been previously been elected to office, and this is clearly a notable person. Moreover WP:C&E are only proposed guidelines, and are not enforceable.--Francisx 23:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think people are missing the point. She gets lots of local coverage, apparently, which is often sufficient for inclusion. But the fact she's repeatedly been on the front of the NY Times, one of the 1) most highly circulated newspapers on Earth; 2) distributed globally, and at the least available in virtually every corner of english speaking North America; 3) merits her article to stay. Lets not also forget that the NY metro region is one of the most populated areas of the entire country/world. Being notable in the New York area means you're due for a Wikipedia entry, simple due to volume of population: simple fact. Or, as they say, if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere... · XP · 23:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What, so anyone of local interest in New York is automatically of global importance? Guy 08:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wellll...Meh. (and I live in Manhattan). this is about CT anyway - that extra piece of drivetime between Boston and NYC. Bwithh 00:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and anything in Connecticut that the good gray Times actually bothers to cover is notable for that alone.:-> Septentrionalis 01:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom --Tbeatty 01:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Duplicate vote struck. Septentrionalis 01:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep. I would have no objection to merging this article, and much of Chris Shays, into the (not yet existent) Connecticut 4th congressional district election, 2006. But I do not see how deleting the information helps the encyclopedia or that article. WP:C&E is a guideline (or, rather, will be one.) It's good general practice, but {{guideline}} is right to say guidelines "are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Septentrionalis 01:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At least through the election. -- DS1953 talk 02:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, WP:C&E is a guideline, and in this case it's both reasonable and germaine. Once we have an article for the district election this candidate has entered, only then will it be clear whether we need an article for the candidate herself. —ptk✰fgs 02:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This elevates the proceedure recommended by the guideline over its purpose: to ensure that articles on candidates have enough credible information to be an article. Well, an article exists; no delete voice has yet questioned the information, so we seem to be past that hurdle already. Septentrionalis 02:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's not much of substance in the article, her own website was the source for most of the information there (inappropriately so), and her notability appears to all stem from articles about Shays. If she loses the election, she's still a schoolteacher turned small-town mayor. Sandy 02:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a few links that could be used as reliable sources for the article text. This is a candidate for a national political office and is backed by one of the two major political parties. I found multiple articles discussing Farrell in a brief Google news search. The article has the potential for expansion. Assuming that the article can be sourced to the multiple news sources that are out there (I have no reason to assume that it cannot), it will be The article is verifiable in reliable sources and neutral. Notability "standards" are POV and subjective; our policies are best served by keeping the verifiable portion of this article. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Jerskyo. Jorcoga  04:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Simões and Jerskyo. - Lex 04:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep election is only a month away and there is no clear leader in this election race. I added about 6 sources to fix V issues.Arbusto 05:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, the amount of coverage typically garnered by a competitive house candidate is significant, as in this case. We should definitely use that coverage to include biographical information on those candidates. Very few such candidates will fail WP:BIO, since they are "major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage." Which isn't to say that articles like this couldn't be merged, but that isn't particularly necessary in this case, and certainly discussing it here would cloud the issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy (et al), are you saying that despite the widespread media coverage in multiple reliable sources, this political candidate is inherently non-notable beecause she is merely a political candidate (regardless of the competitiveness of the race, the profile of the candidates, etc.)? I don't mean to antagonize or mischaracterize your position, and I'm certainly assuming good faith here (I think we're all motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia). I just want to make sure I understand your position. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:15, 9 October 2006 (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.