Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genevieve Jones-Wright

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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Jones-Wright

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL. No other claim of notability and no references covering her separately from the District attorney race. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom after source review - no notability independent from political run. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. She is notable for more than just her run. She has served as a public defender in San Diego since 2006 and has been a vocal defender of California's cannabis laws. She was also involved in an incident where she was pulled over and handcuffed at gunpoint due to a DMV error, which she recorded and posted to her Facebook page. According to WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such 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.'" That has been accomplished here as she's been written about with significant coverage in several publications including the The San Diego Union-Tribune, KPBS Public Media, Voice of San Diego, and The Nation. Lonehexagon (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a single source in the article that discusses her outside of her candidacy, though. SportingFlyer (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article with additional citations of articles that are not about her run yet still discuss her. There has been significant coverage about events from her life before her run, for example her history with cannabis convictions. It's true she is a notable candidate. She is black, female, reform-minded, and has a strong progressive history as a public defender. That's why she is receiving significant coverage outside San Diego, for example in The Nation and Culture Magazine.^[1] Lonehexagon (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment question for others: setting aside the political run, what level of sourcing is needed to become a notable public defender to pass WP:BIO? SportingFlyer talk 19:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just rifled through others in the public defenders category and aside from the Culture Magazine article you noted can't find anything that mentions her apart from her political run. Looking at the public defenders category, it seems from the sample of 20-30 articles I read that every public defender here is notable for something other than their public defense work. SportingFlyer talk 19:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no specific Wikipedia guidelines about public defenders as far as I know. WP:POLITICIAN states an unelected candidate may be notable if they receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." She has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. Lonehexagon (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, and perhaps I've been jaded through voting delete on so many non-notable politicians of late. I've looked through all the sources again and I still don't think she's independently notable as a candidate but the closer should take into account I'm closer to neutral than delete on this. SportingFlyer talk 19:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability guidelines for politicians and nothing else adds up to actual notability. It is time for California Progressive Democrats to stop using Wikipedia as a campaign platform.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence reminds me of WP:DONTLIKEIT. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JPL, you need to be careful. Wikipedia does not have a uniquely serious problem with "California Progressive Democrats" doing this — we have an across the board problem with candidates of every ideological niche from the extreme left to the extreme right and everything in between, in every US state and many other non-US countries too, doing this. You really need to be more careful not to make it sound like your personal inclusion criterion for candidates is whether they agree with your political views or not, rather than whether they pass a Wikipedia inclusion criterion or not. This is far from the first time I've seen you appear to argue for deletion on ideological grounds rather than "Wikipedia policy" grounds, for the record — I can't read your mind, so I don't know whether you intend to be understood that way or not, but it is the way your AFD comments sometimes come across. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete published independent sources only establish that she got pulled over by the police once and that she is running for political office. If she achieves political office and does some notable things that get covered in the press, there will be reason for an article. Otherwise, all this will be forgotten.104.163.148.25 (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being pulled over by the police, she has been covered independently for her support for the state's cannabis laws as a public defender. This has been discussed outside her candidacy. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I do not listen to your arguments anymore, since you vote keep for women candidates at AfD 99.999% of the time. You obviously have an agenda to save articles on women no matter the notability. 104.163.148.25 (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by all my edits and votes, which is why I'm happy to attach them to an account as opposed to editing anonymously. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem with ascribing her preexisting notability for her prior work in the public defender's office and/or on pot reform is that the sourcing for that simply isn't cutting it. The sources here that are strongly about Jones-Wright, for the purposes of establishing whether she passes WP:GNG or not, are tied directly to the candidacy itself — all of the sources that clearly exist outside the campaign coverage just namecheck her existence in coverage about something or somebody else. The Nation cite, for example, just mentions her name one single time apart from the caption to a photograph, and is in no substantive way about her — while she doesn't have to be the sole subject of a source for it to count for something, she does still have to be more than just mentioned. And no, a candidate doesn't clear the notability standards for her prior work just because her prior work gets mentioned as background in the candidacy coverage either. There's also a significant reference bombing problem here, because we rarely if ever need a single statement to be referenced to four or five different citations for the same piece of information — and far, far too many of the references here are to podcasts and community hyperlocals, not strongly reliable media outlets.
So no, her preexisting notability as a public defender has not been properly established by the sources at hand — with these sources, I'm still left evaluating her notability solely on the question of whether or not candidates in primaries get Wikipedia articles on that basis in and of itself. Which they don't. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between local sources for a small town vs local sources for San Diego. The San Diego newspapers serve the San Diego area, but that's 3 million people, several times the population of many states. Lonehexagon (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just saw this last night. On the Daily Show, Malcolm Jenkins spoke about how the criminal justice system needs change from within to correct systemic racism, and pointed to Jones-Wright's run in San Diego as a key race.^[2] Lonehexagon (talk) 16:18, 8 March 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.

^ https://culturemagazine.com/where-loyalties-lie/
^ "Malcolm Jenkins - Leading the Eagles On and Off the Field - Extended Interview - The Daily Show with Trevor Noah | Comedy Central". Comedy Central. Retrieved 2018-03-08.

[1] ttps://culturemagazine.com/where-loyalties-lie/

[2] "Malcolm Jenkins - Leading the Eagles On and Off the Field - Extended Interview - The Daily Show with Trevor Noah | Comedy Central". Comedy Central. Retrieved 2018-03-08.

[1]

[2]