Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoff Young

Geoff Young

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

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

This article is full of undue weight from unreliable, non-significant, or otherwise non-independent sources. It was redirected, but has since been restored twice by IP addresses that geolocate to Russia. I'm unable to find three good sources that would allow the article to pass WP:GNG, because it certainly does not pass WP:NPOL. ––FormalDude talk 11:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Kentucky. ––FormalDude talk 11:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep mentioned by Newsweek twice and all political new papers and media sources in Kentucky. Wp I dont like is not a valid reason to not allow a congressional democratic candidate a page of Wikipedia. Ussr? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1FA0:487F:60E2:0:59:4D56:8001 (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Newsweek isn't valid as a source, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Mail_&_Guardian Oaktree b (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one. In order for a mere candidate to get a Wikipedia article, they must either (a) have some other claim of notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway (e.g. Hillary Clinton, Herschel Walker, Cynthia Nixon), or (b) show credible evidence that their candidacy is so much more notable than everybody else's candidacies that even if they lose the election in the fall they would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). Neither of those things is in evidence here at all. Given the editwarring, further, we should delete this first and then recreate a redirect back to the election again, so that there isn't anything available in the edit history for non-administrators to revert over. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is sufficient grounds for him to already have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a close one for me. I think strict enforcement of WP:NPOL is usually good especially on congressional candidates. One or two election runs is not really notable. Where I think Young crosses the line and begins to meet WP:GNG is the number of runs he's done and the time he's spent running for office. Young has spent a decade running for office and there are articles describing him as a perennial candidate [1]. There are some pretty decent articles covering his runs for office [2] and his current run has generated pretty unique coverage since many Kentucky dems are refusing to endorse him [3]. In short I think the coverage of him over a decade of political runs is enough to meet WP:GNG as a perennial candidate and there is maybe an argument he barely meets WP:NPOL as "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Although I do want to note that the article is frequently edited back to a prior version that heavily relies on WP:SPS and I've attempted to cut the WP:SPS and replace the citations with WP:RS multiple times only to have the article reverted back to its old version.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately all the sources you provided are interviews and not independent. Since you recognize the poor content that this article is made up of, I would highly recommend you consider Blow it up and start over as an option. Though I'd want to see independent sources that meet GNG before supporting that option myself. ––FormalDude talk 15:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a distinction in those articles between citing the journalist's write up (usually in the article before the interview) and the interview itself, but you're definitely right a lot of the articles cited are interviews and given the disruptive edits on the page it probably isn't the best place for that nuanced distinction since other editors really want to cite the interviews themselves.
    
    However, it is worth noting there are WP:IS here: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Plus 3 Lexington Herald Articles I can't access that I don't think are interviews but could be wrong. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those first four are interviews, the 5th is WP:NEWSWEEK, but the last one is good. ––FormalDude talk 02:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two quote him, they aren't published interviews. It looks like the journalists interviewed him to get quotes, but calling the first two not WP:IS interviews seems a stretch; they appear to be normal articles from the The Courier-Journal. The third is an article with a broadcast clip, not an interview. The fourth source is a radio station, but its a news piece by a journalist and not an interview and doesn't even include an audio component. Concede the WP:NEWSWEEK source is bad. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The third is also an article and the article is an interview, as is the fourth one. The first four are all pieces that are made up substantially of direct quotes from the subject, so they are not independent. ––FormalDude talk 03:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely per Bearcat and nom - this guy fails WP:NPOL despite his many runs and apparent inability to pick a party. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i added this discussion to wp Russia wp ars and to 2022 congressional race to notify other users all these were reverted against Wikipedia policy 176.59.168.167 (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

user above says after the election? This man is running for congress under 1 of the 2 parties

Notability had not been met it has been exceeded pov in editing wp good faith does not mean being blind to definitive bias

This man will be at least a footnote in books for decades to come long after we forgotten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.168.167 (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
added comment of deletion discussion to WikiProject Kentucky 176.59.168.167 (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]