Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Ossoff

Jon Ossoff

Jon Ossoff (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)

Most of the coverage is either trivial or routine. Fails WP:NPOL. Should really be a redirect, but keeps getting re-added. If this person wins, then the article should be reinstated, but right now he's one of several minor players in a run-off election. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 03:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 03:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect and protect He's not presently notable, but his name is a valid search term for Georgia's 6th congressional district special election, 2017. I created this as a redirect to see newly registered accounts (sock or meatpuppets possibly) try to force this into an article. It should be a redirect for the time being and hopefully an admin can protect it so that it can't be edited until a convincing case for GNG can be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Delete no objection to redirect. fails WP:POL. Probably is a candidate for WP:SALT based on the complaints of recreation above. Jbh ^Talk 03:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 03:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it would be better to protect it as a redirect because he could become notable, possibly even if he loses. If he wins he's a member of the U.S. Congress. Either way it's clear an admin should prevent it from becoming a full article unless there's good reason to do so. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect Per Muboshgu. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Favored candidate on the democratic side, leading the polls, and generating national press, endorsements, and fundraising. - modern_seneca (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. He doesn't (yet) meet those. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't WP:POLITICIAN be satisfied via item 2? Receiving significant local press coverage and endorsements from 3 of the biggest Democratic figures in GA? By my reading of WP:GNG it is satisfied, which bullet point there would you say is not met? - modern_seneca (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Case for Meeting WP:GNG

• "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
  • I would argue that this coverage from ABC News having a large photo of Ossoff as the article header and 4 sentences devoted to Ossoff's accomplishments. This should constitute more than a mention. -- Seneca ^Talk 03:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
  • I think ABC News, NY Mag, Independent, Atlanta Journal Constitution, and Daily KOS aught to be considered reliable enough. -- Seneca ^Talk 03:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • Again, ABC News, NY Mag, Independent, Atlanta Journal Constitution, and Daily KOS should constitute multiple secondary sources. -- Seneca ^Talk 03:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]
  • Again, ABC News, NY Mag, Independent, Atlanta Journal Constitution, and Daily KOS should be considered independent of the subject -- Seneca ^Talk 03:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
  • This criteria appears a bit subjective, but at this point it seems reasonable that we have created the "assumption not the guarantee" that Ossoff warrants an separate article. -- Seneca ^Talk 03:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)