Talk:Theresa Greenfield

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• PFe6XLV6 400x400.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft article

There is a draft of the article at Draft:Theresa Greenfield. KidAd (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Could an admin. please add the {{R with possibilities}} template within the Rcat shell? This will put the standard notification of the existence of the draft on the page itself, in addition to the talk page notification above. Also could the section target be changed to #General election, since Greenfield is the major-party nominee and we are in that phase? Thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 03:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: you added the rcat subtemplate, thanks; could you also change to section that is targeted, as I requested above? TIA, UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done updated to 2020_United_States_Senate_election_in_Iowa#General_election. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Notable

I think this is pretty silly to say that someone who won a primary with like five times the votes of many state representatives (who are all notable), has raised over 10 million dollars, is often leading by a little against a senator, and could very likely determine the balance of the chamber, is not notable. DemonDays64 (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. The race is one of the closest in the country and could determine the balance of the Senate. Greenfield is now a nationally known public figure and the draft article is thorough and well-sourced. Moreover, having a full Wikipedia article for the incumbent while blocking a very well-written and edited one for the viable challenger creates an unfortunate, inadvertent platform bias, in which readers can only get vital information about the incumbent. This should be changed ASAP and the draft article for Greenfield should become a Wikipedia article immediately. Baseballtom (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the article became a redirect when Greenfield was just a candidate for the primary. Now that she is the Democratic nominee in a contested race, she has undeniably acquired a higher level of notability that clears Wikipedia's threshold by a significant margin. Baseballtom (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Baseballtom: who would one ask to unprotect it? DemonDays64 (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

This article was redirected by a discussion. It has gone to WP:DRV three separate times with the same result. Drop the stick and move away from the carcass. She'll get an article if she wins. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd add that anyone can start working on an article in draft form if she does win contribute to the draft article. --Enos733 (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

And the draft was submitted and declined eight days ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu, I see that the Deletion Review activity was months ago, and the draft has been substantially expanded since then. The current draft looks quite viable to me, passing my understanding of WP:GNG with detailed content and solid referencing. I'd be willing to move this to article space, and to discuss it in AfD if nominated. That would enable a structured community discussion from the several editors who are interested in this, instead of the single point of review at AfC.

WP:PROTECT says protection is appropriate when there is a "specifically identified likelihood of damage resulting if editing is left open". I believe that unprotecting this page would enable healthy activity instead of damage: there's an effort at a carefully-written article with verifiable content, and the question is notability, so let's have a structured and collaborative discussion about notability (which is what AfD is for) instead of scattered conversations in various talk pages. Can you unprotect it so we can give this a try as editors together? Dreamyshade (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

To give this draft article and redirect such a high level of protection is absurd. A longtime editor like me can edit the pages of Donald Trump and Joe Biden, but I cannot edit the redirect for Theresa Greenfield. That makes no sense. This draft article is not vandalized, and is not likely to be vandalized. It clearly consistent with the Wikipedia policies on notability and BLP. Theresa Greenfield meets the notability criteria because of the large volume of independent media coverage that her campaign has received. As of right now, September 2020, there is a consensus on this talk page that this draft article should go up in the mainspace. Dreamyshade, myself, BaseballTom, and DemonDays all agree that this is notable. Only Muboshgu and one other think it should not. We must publish this article. Narayansg (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree also. All the DRV's ignored the increasing of newer WP:GNG-passing and only focused on it being "too recent" since the respective previous discussion. Now that the last discussion was over two months ago and a ton of new GNG-passing coverage has (predictably) occurred in that time. Oakshade (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The original article was deleted before the primary had even concluded - while I agree that not every candidate in a primary is worthy of an article, I would counter that a major party's nominee in a very close Senate race with extensive media coverage that could very well decide which party holds the Senate definitely is. It looks like the last two drafts were rejected by the same administrator who appears to have strong views on one side of this dispute, even when there have been significant continued improvements to the draft - it seems to me like the best, most logical and fair outcome of all of this would be to open the discussion up again to get a better, updated sense of the community's consensus on whether or not there should be a page. Baseballtom (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Concur to everything said above. It seems abundantly obvious that she passed the noteworthy test. | MK17b | (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Patently obvious she passes the noteworthiness test. We can either have this discussion now, or in January. Buggie111 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Reviewer Comments

This is a copy of my comments at Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield in case anyone isn't paying attention in draft talk space to what is being said about drafts.

User:Dreamyshade, User:UnitedStatesian, User:Malcolmxl5 - Perhaps we need to clarify the policy on general notability of candidates for political office. It is the usual practice, with very few exceptions, that candidates for political office are not considered to have general notability unless they already had general notability before being candidates. Greenfield was not considered to be generally notable before she became the Democratic candidate for the United States Senate from Iowa. I declined the draft three times for that reason, and I think that I applied policy as it is normally applied in Wikipedia. The fact that the current draft may be much improved is not relevant to that situation. Greenfield is still a major party candidate for the Senate, and still was not generally notable before her campaign.

It is also not the usual practice, when a redirect is fully protected due to repeated efforts to replace it with an article, to unprotect the redirect to allow a draft to be reviewed. The draft can be reviewed while the redirect is protected, and the reviewer can request unprotection, or the reviewer can decline the draft and leave the redirect protected. Unprotecting the draft would permit the Greenfield campaign (or whoever) to copy-paste the draft over the redirect, bypassing the review.

I do not see a strong case for unprotecting the redirect, and I do not see a strong case for reviewing or accepting a new draft. Perhaps the policy on general notability of candidates should be reviewed. Late November 2020 and early December 2020 would be a good time for that review. This is not the time to try to revise the policy, and this is not the time to resubmit a draft.

I don't want to have to request that an administrator read the ARBAP2 riot act.

But these resubmissions are getting tiresome. If you don't like the way policy is being applied, change the policy or clarify the policy with an information page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to change policy (and WP:NPOL is a guideline, by the way): WP:GNG applies to all subjects, which is what makes it "general". Contrary to your assertion, there is no general notability guideline specifically for candidates, which is a contradiction in terms. In this case, there are multiple independent reliable sources in the draft that now meet WP:SIGCOV, meaning that this subject clearly meets WP:GNG. Some candidates will, like this one, (and like a certain subject with whom you may be familiar, and like many, many others) meet the WP:GNG before they meet the subject-specific guideline. When that happens, the article should be in the mainspace. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way forward is to get the opinion of someone WP:UNINVOLVED. Perhaps an admin with familiarity in the AP2 area. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with UnitedStatesian on policy interpretation and application here. So I have a question about next steps: how to find somebody who is the appropriate kind of WP:UNINVOLVED? For example, I was uninvolved before noticing this a few days ago (September 22), and I am not an admin, but my understanding is that admins wouldn't have special weight in notability discussions outside of their general expertise as editors. We asked on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Theresa Greenfield for a different perspective on removing full protection, but an uninvolved admin there chose to not take action because it's already involved in the AFC process. I'd be happy to help post on a different noticeboard or otherwise ask for help, but I'm not sure what a good next step would be. This is part of why I believe it would be a constructive process to enable creation of the page, and then people can take it to AfD if they want to -- because AfD can enable a robust, organized discussion of notability with multiple perspectives and an established judging procedure. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The basic criteria for notability guideline is People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

Furthermore, general notability requires:

• "Significant coverage"
• "Reliable"
• "Sources" should be secondary sources
• "Independent of the subject"

With over 60 citations, most of them from independent, reliable secondary sources, there should be no question whether Greenfield is notable or not. Please use the notability guidelines as written. I believe that requiring general notability before one becomes a candidate as an article criteria is an interpretation not in accord with the guidelines. Peaceray (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This has already been discussed numerous times including three deletion review discussions. The problem is that the sources all cover the subject in the context of the election. Wikipedia rarely has standalone articles about subjects notable for a single event (WP:BLP1E / WP:BIO1E) and considers the enduring notability of the subject (WP:NOTNEWS). Given that it makes more sense to cover the subject in the article about the event. If she wins the election or becomes notable for some reason other than the election then the situation would change, but it hasn't yet. Hut 8.5 06:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I love how the story keeps changing. The reviewer rejected the draft saying she was not the subject of significant coverage. When editors pointed out that, in fact, she was the subject of such coverage, now the concern is WP:BLP1E. Of course, that overlooks the fact that she was the subject of reliable sources, cited in the current draft, in 2018 (when she ran for Congress), as well as this year: clearly not one event. The sources establish the enduring notability, because the sources will endure. WP:DRV was WP:WRONGFORUM, since there was nothing procedurally wrong with the first AfD. On the other hand, it was clearly WP:INVOLVED for the administrator who nominated the earlier article for deletion to also protect the redirect from any editing. A second AfD, of this version, would be the right forum for a broad audience of editors to raise any WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS concerns; that second AfD is one I am quite certain this version of the article would easily survive. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian, I see that this is the first contribution of Hut 8.5 to this page, so as this is a fresh perspective, I think that "the story keeps changing" is a mischaracterization if you are referring to Hut 8.5's comments.

Having written that, WP:BLP1E / WP:BIO1E clearly indicates that someone should not be notable for a single event. For Theresa Greenfield, reliable, secondary sources detail the following events:

• Greenfield ran for 2018 Iowa's 3rd congressional district Democratic primary
• After learning her campaign manager had falsified some of the 1,790 required signatures for ballot qualification, Greenfield withdrew due to lack of signatures.
• Greenfield ran for & obtained the Democractic nomination in the 2020 U.S. Senate election
• Greenfield has remained competitive

• Having raised 80% of what Ernst raised according to an NPR article in what is (from the draft) expected to be the most expensive in the state's history, and the second most expensive Senate race in the United State
• Greenfield is polling at least equal to the incumbent. the RealClearPolitics average has her ahead by +2.6%.

Two campaigns containing notable milestones, constitute more than a single event. Therefore, this meets WP:BLP1E / WP:BIO1E.

Peaceray (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, OK, there are a few sources discussing her failing to get on the ballot for the Democratic primary in the 2018 elections for Iowa's 3rd congressional district, but I don't think that gives her a meaningful career outside her current Senate run. It's worth at most a few sentences, we don't have an article on the election and we don't have articles on the people who did get on the ballot except the winner (who's now in Congress).

The claim above that "The sources establish the enduring notability, because the sources will endure" is a gross distortion of WP:NOTNEWS, which doesn't say that at all. On the contrary it says quite clearly that most events which get news coverage are not encyclopedic. This applies whether those news articles continue to exist or not. Rather the policy is saying that we don't have articles on things which generate short term news coverage but which are insignificant in the long term. If Greenfield loses and doesn't ever do anything noteworthy again then she will very likely be seen as insignificant a few years from now. Note that there aren't any campaigns for Wikipedia to have articles about people who lost Senate races years ago, it's only current candidates who people argue are notable. Her fundraising total and (very small) polling lead aren't relevant either, we can't write an article based on our own speculation that she's going to win the election. Hut 8.5 17:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS as it states is meant to discourage articles of subject that have only received "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities." This GNG-passing coverage of this person is far beyond any of those and have become even much further in-depth since the last DRV back in July. Not only has this person passed GNG easily, but having won the major party US Senatorial primary and has emerged as a major candidate and has been ahead in the polls demonstrates an enduring notability even if this person loses the general election. Besides GNG, even by NOTNEWS this person passes our notability standards. Oakshade (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The Issue

"Here we go again". First, since I am being pinged, what if anything does anyone want me, User:Robert McClenon, to do? In case you haven't noticed, I couldn't accept the draft even if I wanted to accept it (which I do not). The redirect page is protected. Am I being asked to file a Request for Page Unprotection? You already did that. Second, I have read the policies and guidelines also. I am referring to how the policies and guidelines are applied. If you want to change the usual interpretation or application of the policies and guidelines, address that in a policy forum. Third, since you say that the situation has changed since the last Deletion Review, you have the right to request another Deletion Review. The title was not listed at Deletion Review Perennial Requests, although that was discussed. You have the right to request another deletion review. It is likely to be viewed as vexatious litigation.

Fourth, why does it make so much difference to get the article at this time? I know one possible answer, which is that it may be argued that whether she has her own Wikipedia article could swing a few votes in Iowa, and therefore could make the difference in the election, and therefore could make the difference as to whether the Democratic Party can organize the Senate. I know. We do have a special provision here in Wikipedia for dealing with efforts to use Wikipedia for a socially desirable purpose that is not the same as maintaining an encyclopedia. I know. Do I need to read the riot act?

What do you want me to do? Where is the next stop? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I also feel quite at a loss. Ivanvector was correct in that requesting unprotection at RFPP is an end-around the AFC process. I throw up my hands as well. At this point, I either stick with my initial action, which may have been in error, or I publish a draft that has been declined by a third party reviewer? I don't like my options here. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

It was certainly not my intention to end-run any process when making my two unprotect requests. Instead, I am operating under the understanding that a proper AfC process requires that the redirect be unprotected, otherwise there is no way any Draft could possibly be accepted via AfC. And in fact it is the WP:INVOLVED administrator's protection of the redirect that end-runs the AfC process. Also, just to note I don't have a dog in this fight: the only edit I made to the draft was to add the {{draft article}} template to it. I am only trying (and I too am a 3rd-party AfC reviewer) to help other editors (who seem to me to be quite competent) follow the correct process (which is not WP:DRV, and Robert, you should know that by now) to get what now looks like pretty high quality, and 100% suitable content into the encyclopedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that vexatious litigation is an unfair characterization. The article was clearly not ready on its first declension or its second declension, & was arguably close to being ready for prime time at its third declension. Since the last declension, the draft has gone through 94 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown. We have addressed the notability concerns, as I believe is evident by any plain reading of WP:BASIC, WP:BLP1E, & WP:BIO1E.

As to the argument that it may be argued that whether she has her own Wikipedia article could swing a few votes in Iowa, and therefore could make the difference in the election, it can be conversely argued that continued suppression of the article would be of benefit of Ernst. Both sides of that argument should be quickly discarded as not relevant, & we should return to being WP:NEUTRAL & evaluating the merits of the draft on its notability

I will note that I have read WP:ARBAP2#Final decision & believe I am making comments about the draft's substance that is in accord with that decision. Peaceray (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)