Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Watts III

Howard Watts III

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

Website on an otherwise not-notable political candidate fails WP:POLOUTCOMES. Incidental coverage is related entirely to his current campaign. Chetsford (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete plainly does not meet standards for political notability, and no other claim is made. Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, as yet unelected candidates in future elections do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. Nothing here establishes preexisting notability, however — winning a youth activism award is nice for him, but not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself — and since every candidate in any election always generates coverage in the local media where that election is taking place, just showing a couple of pieces of local campaign coverage does not hand a candidate a WP:GNG pass in and of itself. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins, but nothing here already gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this point he is running for a nomination, not even a direct candidate for the office. Wikipedia is not a platform for posting campaign brouchers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have updated the article to demonstrate Watts' extensive media coverage of his role in politics in Nevada. He is the chosen endorsed candidate of the Nevada Assembly Democratic Caucus. https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/more-ethics-complaints-filed-in-heller-rosen-senate-fight/ I am open to how this article can be improved or reclassified, but I think Watts is notable enough to be named in the LA Times, Forbes and multiple local news media. Wikimcaffee (talk) 04:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being "the chosen endorsed candidate" of a political party is not grounds for a Wikipedia article — if he wasn't already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he doesn't become notable enough for an article until he wins the general election in November. And having his name mentioned in coverage of other things doesn't assist in demonstrating that he has preexisting notability, either: he has to be the subject of coverage, not just namechecked in coverage about other things, before that coverage helps make him notable. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was the subject of the Nevada Public Radio article. If he wasn’t notable before running, why do major news outlets choose to interview him on a variety of topics? Why was he the subject of an article about notable people in the state capital?Wikimcaffee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nevada Public Radio article certainly would contribute to notability. Now we just need a few more like that to establish WP:SIGCOV. Right now that is the only source that provides deep coverage; the rest are either (a) within the context of his political campaign, (b) incidental mentions, (c) not WP:INDEPENDENT (for example, his participation in a local TV roundtable discussion which provides no information on him which he doesn't vocalize himself). As it is, there is so little reliable biographical information on him we don't even know his date of birth. That's not a bright line, but is usually a good indicator there's going to be difficulty in establishing someone's acceptability under the WP:GNG.

As an aside, unrelated to the issue of GNG, much of this article is WP:PUFFERY. For instance, this claim - "Watts has educated media and the public about water issues in the West, including the record low levels at Lake Mead" - is sourced to his address and telephone number appearing on an alphabetical list of the 1,050 registered Nevada lobbyists (here [1]). If Howard Watts needs a campaign website he should check-out godaddy.com, not wikipedia.org. Chetsford (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. He has a campaign website... that's not the purpose here. I've removed the fluffy stuff you mentioned and added additional references where he was named "Best Activist" by Vegas Seven magazine; "Local Hero" by Las Vegas City Life (where he was featured on the cover). Between those, the Nevada Public Radio piece, and the Las Vegas Sun piece about him winning an award for activism, that's four major sources where he is the subject of the article. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. Thanks!Wikimcaffee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering what is good for date of birth references. I see a lot of articles that don't even have a source for the dob. I see others where the source cited for biographical information is from the subject's own website. Thanks again for the help everyone. Wikimcaffee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Vegas Seven mention is, just that, a mention ... in a local free paper's "Best of" awards along with the Rollin Smoke BBQ restaurant [2] and Penn's Thai House, a restaurant in a strip mall [3]. I checked Vegas City Life's archives and can't find any evidence he was ever featured in it. Chetsford (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Vegas Seven article is 200 words, and it's all about Watts. https://vegasseven.com/2013/07/25/best-activist/ That's not a trivial mention: "The guideline has long stated that a one sentence mention is plainly trivial." WP:TRIVIAL Vegas Seven is an independent and reliable source of news. I don't believe whether or not the publication charges is a relevant factor. I have read the article in CityLife and I know it exists and Watts was on the cover. I don't believe it has to be available online to be a reliable source. Wikipedia:AGF Wikimcaffee (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimcaffee (talk • contribs) 06:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be available online but it has to exist, and it doesn't seem to. Further, according to your above description, you inserted a reference based on your recollection of once seeing the article six years ago. The level of detail added for an article you're saying you have had no direct access to in six years and were merely working off memory is ... unusual. If you are Howard Watts III, in the employ of Howard Watts III, or have a familial or pecuniary interest in HW3, your affiliation needs to be disclosed per WP:COI. Chetsford (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, lots of people can be the subject of some purely local media coverage in their own hometowns without qualifying for Wikipedia articles because of it: teenagers frequently get into their local newspaper for "human interest" reasons like winning a high school poetry contest or a battle of the bands competition or trying out for their high school football team despite being an amputee; every single person on a town or city's municipal council always gets some local media coverage; every candidate in an election always gets some local media coverage; and a neighbour of my parents got into the local media a few years ago for finding a pig in her front yard. So what needs to be shown to qualify someone for a Wikipedia article is not just "a couple of pieces of local media coverage exist" — if the coverage doesn't verify anything that would pass a subject-specific notability standard right on its face, then either (a) there has to be a hell of a lot more of it than just a couple of pieces, or (b) it has to expand far enough beyond the purely local that the person has a credible reason to be considered notable on a much wider scale. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it's a subjective analysis. The guidelines are relatively vague... it just says "significant coverage." I think 4 articles in 4 different local publications, one with a cover photo, is significant. I can get a physical copy of that article if there's still no good faith being given. Then there are numerous articles where his opinion is sought out by local journalists, with at least one in the L.A. Times and a mention if Forbes. This sort of becomes a "how many pieces of flair?" discussion at some point. Thus far, no matter how many have been cited to, a more difficult standard gets brought up. There's more articles about him than there are opinions here... does that mean there isn't significant consensus, and the presumption is in favor of keeping the article? Wikimcaffee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, we only seem to have one article in one local publication in which he's the subject of significant coverage outside his campaign. Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Las Vegas is a decent-sized market. It's not like we are talking about some little town newspapers. Wikimcaffee (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what size of market we're talking about. We don't just eyeball who the provider of the coverage happens to be, or the size of the media market itself: we also eyeball the context in which the coverage is being given, and whether or not it verifies anything that would actually count as a valid notability claim. Even an unelected candidate in New York City wouldn't get a special exemption from having to clear our notability standards for politicians just because his campaign-related local coverage happened to be in The New York Times instead of the Peoria Pennysaver. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an activist who runs for the legislature is not sufficiently notable to qualify for an article. A shot at persuading me (and perhaps other editors) would require multiple WP:RS covering his notable activism (or some other notable achievement), preferably including two or three profiles or long, profile-style interviews with him. the sole pre-campaign cited source ("Local Hero". Las Vegas CityLife. December 20, 2012.) might count, we would need a link. It would not suffice. Wikimcaffee, we're not picking on your boy in particular, we have rules like this for good reasons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand. From WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE - "On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view. Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections (see the specific guidelines for books, films, music and artists); common sense and editorial judgement should be used to reach a consensus about the sources available." WP:TRIVIAL "The guideline states that these sources need to provide "significant coverage" of the topic, and this coverage must consist of more than a "trivial mention". The guideline has long stated that a one sentence mention is plainly trivial." OK, I have four articles I will link to here that are MORE THAN TRIVAL by the definition provided. They are in fact articles from independent reliable sources where Watts himself is the subject of the articles. 1) Watts wins a famous award (it's listed in Wikipedia) and an article with about 1,000 words is written about him: https://lasvegassun.com/news/2012/dec/06/progressive-las-vegas-organizer/. 2) Watts named one of the Activists of Carson City. 272 words about him, not some other topic. https://knpr.org/desert-companion/slingshot-and-prayer-activists-carson-city 3) Watts written about with 200 words, named Best Activist. https://vegasseven.com/2013/07/25/best-activist/ 4) 4 paragraphs written in article at City Life where he is named "Local Hero." https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Howard_Watt_III_Las_Vegas_City_Life.jpg - Either there's a misunderstanding about what trivial coverage or not trivial coverage is by some here... or I'm not understanding something.Wikimcaffee (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are several other articles where he is quoted, with more than one sentence. There are several local news articles, the LA Times article cited on his page. He was also on the PBS News Hour (just found this): https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-the-mortgage-crisis-in-nevada-will-affect-voters#transcript Wikimcaffee (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimcaffee, Like all systems with any plausible claim to fairness, we - the volunteers who edit Wikipedia - operate under a set of rules. Your entirely understandable puzzlement is a product of the fact editors who have commented above are aware of WP:POLOUTCOMES which states not only that, "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits.... Note that this criterion has not generally been as restrictive as the criterion for city councillors. City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London." but also that "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted..." To make this even more puzzling to new editors, Wikipedia, like all formal legal systems, operates under a dual system of black letter and customary law. Experienced editors like User:Bearcat, who performs yoeman's labour season after political season researching (often newly created) articles about individuals who have recently declared candidacy for office, gauge whether individuals who are candidates for office are sufficiently notable to have an article by whether or not they have gotten the kinds of coverage that I described to you above. to me, it does not appear that Watts has the kind of sources that we would need to see.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, an award having a Wikipedia article about the award itself does not mean that award is automatically notable enough to confer standalone notability on every individual person who wins it. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so the standard for "notability because he won an award" is not just the fact that the award has an article — it requires a prominent award on the approximate level of the Oscars or the Emmys or the Pulitzer Prize, not just any award that exists at all. Secondly, "one of the activists of Carson City" is not a notability claim, and neither is being named "best local activist" or "local hero" by local media. Thirdly, neither is getting quoted in coverage of other things: a person has to be the subject of the coverage, not a giver of soundbite in coverage about some other subject besides himself, before that source counts toward establishing notability. Purely local media coverage is not enough to make any of that a reason why someone would get an encyclopedia article in and of itself.

Noting that the Award does not have a Wikipedia page; the activist in honor of whom it is named has a page.160.39.35.32 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you're showing is not what's required to properly demonstrate that a person has preexisting notability for other reasons: without the candidacy you would not even have attempted this article at all, which plainly demonstrates that the purpose of the article was the candidacy itself, and everything else is just you desperately clutching at straws to find loopholes. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]