Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Cawthorn

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cryptic (talk | contribs) at 00:40, 7 July 2020 (Listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 6). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina#District 11. A tough decision but I think that the arguments for a redirect prevail, with no prejudice against recreation if he wins in November. Tone 20:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Cawthorn

[edit]

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

Madison Cawthorn (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)

Unelected politician. All the coverage is current news about his run for office. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:NOTNEWS. Whpq (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a vote, but just something for all to consider before voting. The article as it is does not appear to be written well, but that's not a reason to delete. While it's true that Cawthorn does not yet meet NPOL, he likely will. North Carolina's 11th congressional district has a Partisan Voter Index score of R+14, as Trump beat Hillary 62-33.7 in the district in 2016.[1] This is not a district where Democrats are expected to have much of a chance. The election forecasters call this race "Safe Republican". So, granted that WP:CRYSTAL does apply, this discussion is about a politician who is likely to be elected to the House in November. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that Draft:Madison Cawthorn exists. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tentatively agree with the comment above. Given the makeup of the district, there's a good chance Cawthorn will be elected as the youngest congressperson in modern history come November. If there's little else notable about this 24-year-old kid (yet), then I'm not opposed to it being deleted for now. However, I agree that it shouldn't be deleted just because nothing has been written yet. Perhaps it should be re-evaluated in a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisz2264 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no objection to this being an article when he is elected, but that hasn't happened yet. Even if it is likely to happen, it isn't a certainty to happen. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chrisz2264 A 24-year-old is not a kid. He is an adult man. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My wife regularly calls her 24-year-old daughter a kid. She was also born in August 1995. I could also present a large amount of sociological work that shows that many of the current generation do not enter fully into adulthood until they are 25. There also are some rental agreements for some items that are generally not allowed under age 25, under age 25 is treated as a higher risk youth category by insurance, and I can cite lots of other issues, such as the adult population college graduated is only calculated based on the population over 25 to indicate that in fact to many people 24-year-olds are still kids.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert what someone calls another is irrelevant. He is legally an adult and sociological work does not strictly define someone as becoming an adult at 25. I could point to a lot of psychological work that refers to a young adult as someone 20-years-old and above. Anyway, it is what the law says that is more important. He is old enough to run for Congress – then he certainly isn't a "kid" as in child. cookie monster (2020) 755 20:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins. Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. And we also don't exempt candidates from that rule just because the normal partisan lean of their district appears to favour their victory: there have been elections where the candidate who was "expected" to win actually lost in the end, or had to withdraw their name from the ballot for legal or medical reasons (or even died) in advance of election day, so "seems like he's probably going to win" is not a notability claim that exempts a candidate from our normal notability standards for politicians. And no, the fact that some campaign coverage already exists is not a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL either — every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL at all, and NPOL itself would literally mean nothing at all anymore. As always, he will get an article in November if he wins the seat, since his notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder", but simply winning the primary to become a candidate in the general election is not in and of itself grounds for an article to already exist today. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now per WP:CRYSTAL. He is only the presumptive Republican nominee for the district. IF he is elected to office on November 3, then we can establish whether there shall be an article on the subject. Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina for now. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If all y'all gonna have that much hair 'cross your assess then delete! LOL! Don't got better things to do in life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:C400:101:71FB:1AFC:D48D:7195 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a rational argument against for deletion, 2600:8801:C400:101:71FB:1AFC:D48D:7195. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. It is not a rational argument FOR deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:C400:101:71FB:1AFC:D48D:7195 (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to the election he doesn't meet WP:NPOL until (if) he wins, and not sooner. Coverage of his running is news, not indicating any sort of individual significance until he wins. We don't presume politicians are notable until they win election, not before. There's actually quite a large amount of coverage of him running (BBC, NPR, CBS, NYTimes). imo this is still barely a case of WP:TOOSOON because he's right now only notable for one event, but there's definitely a case to be made for keeping as well.Eddie891 Talk Work 19:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. O, Deletionism! Here we go again. There are articles about this guy on CNN [2], NPR [3], CBS News [4], the New York Times [5], and the BBC [6], among others, but somehow that's not enough notability for some to justify a well-sourced and well-researched Wikipedia article. I'm sure it's a violation of WP:.... SOMETHING. If I sound snarky and cynical, it's because deletionism for the sake of deletionism makes me that way. In a strongly Republican district, the winner of the Republican primary is almost guaranteed to win the general election. Which means that in November, when this guy is a congressman-elect, we'll have to reinvent the wheel and re-create the whole article from scratch, for... some reason. Beyond the media coverage, and his notability for winning a primary election when he was not endorsed by Trump and others, it's also notable that Cawthorn would be the youngest congressperson ever elected. He only barely squeaks by Constitutionally by a few months. Moncrief (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Moncrief Agreed. Thenextprez 23:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Moncrief, almost guaranteed isn't guaranteed, so we don't know that he'll be a congressman-elect. And there's draft space as a way to work on it, as I've been working on Draft:August Pfluger, Draft:Mary Miller (politician), Draft:Mondaire Jones, and other likely incoming freshmen. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our job is not to keep an article about everybody whose name happens to be temporarily present in the current news cycle — our job is to never keep an article about anybody until they've passed the ten year test for enduring significance, which means "no article until after he's accomplished something significant enough that people will still be looking for information about him in 2030 because of it". Officeholders pass that test; with extremely rare exceptions, candidates almost always do not. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Agree that Cawthorn's only claim to notability is his candidacy. This article is basically campaign literature. I thought to improveit, but it was hard to find any reliably-sourced content that wasn't about this one claim to notability. (There are some interesting documents where he was very weirdly suing an insurance company for $30 million, Cawthorn sounds like a piece of work.) But there are quite a few Wikipedia searches for the name, so redirecting to NC-11 election would seem to make sense. If and when Cawthorn wins the election (which seems quite likely), an article that isn't just campaign literature would be written. --- M.boli (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The thing is, he has won an election. A primary election is an election. Is there a Wikipedia rule that only elected congresspeople can have articles written about them? Even as an anti-deletionist, I would agree that every primary candidate and winner need not have his or her own article. But Cawthorn did win an election -- a primary election -- and is more notable than most who do so, because (a) he beat all the GOP establishment odds; and (b) is only 24 years old. Moncrief (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NPOL does not say won an election. It says "...have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels" and that has not yet happened. -- Whpq (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd argue that Cawthorn meets the qualifications of the second bullet point at WP:NPOL: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage," especially so with the footnote clarification. I'll leave at that. Others can disagree or agree as they choose. Moncrief (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Firstly, NPOL #2 is for mayors and city councillors, not unelected candidates for any office. Secondly, every candidate in every election always gets campaign coverage — so if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL #1 then NPOL #1 would be inherently meaningless, because literally nobody would ever actually have to be measured by it at all anymore if everybody in politics could always exempt themselves from it. The core point is, we are not a free publicity platform, so it is not our job or our mandate or our role to hold campaign brochures for aspiring candidates: our job is to have articles about people who have held notable political offices, not everybody who ever ran for one regardless of whether they won or lost. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was searching for sources to try to improve the article for exactly the same reasons as the footnote on WP:NPOL. But the press coverage was only about Cawthorn won the primary, and his bio and a few quotes. Nothing in those articles had any hint of notability beyond: he won a primary and will be the GOP nominee. My main thinking was to improve the article by adding whatever it was that made him notable. Came up dry. M.boli (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mainly for reasons already cited (e.g., the number of searches for him, not being endorsed by Trump, his age and inexperience, the accident and subsequent lawsuit). Now that he's won the primary he and his company will be under closer scrutiny and more information will be forthcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calinjaxnc (talk • contribs) 20:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now. If he wins, we can easily revert back to an article. Jonathunder (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - due to this fairly detailed article I read online (see here). Wouldn't be nessearily opposed to a redirect or a draftify either. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. He does not yet meet notability. Once he wins, it can be recreated with its current contents.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason why this page should be deleted. He's most likely going to be elected to the seat this November. And in response to the argument that he should be the occupant of a prominent political office, and not just a candidate, were those standards adhered to in 2018 when AOC upset Joe Crowley in the primary? Even if the prior standard was that unelected candidates didn't get Wikipedia pages, with some exceptions, which I'm not even sure about, it's clear that this standard has been dispensed with. Thenextprez 23:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationale for AOC being notable was that not only did she have a lot of coverage, but her primary win was " one of the biggest political upsets of the decade". Crowley was the "fourth-most powerful Democrat in the House, one of the most powerful Democrats in New York City". Though Lynda Bennett was endorsed by Trump, it isn't in the same category of upset. Not that I believe presumptive winners are notable, but AOC's district also voted almost 80% for Clinton, whereas NC-11 only voted 62% for Trump. NY-14 is D+29 whereas NC-11 is R+14. The situations aren't comparable. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the standard has not been "dispensed with". AOC got an extremely large volume of international coverage, far beyond what most primary candidates get: I'm Canadian and she was getting coverage here, which US elections below the presidential level normally don't. She didn't get an article in advance of the election because she was a candidate per se — she got an article because she was already an international household name, who was already substantially more famous to Canadians and Britons and Australians and South Africans than any incumbent member of the entire United States House of Representatives whose surname isn't Pelosi.
The standard, in other words, is still the same as it's always been: candidates get articles in only three situations. (1) They win the election in the end. (2) They can be shown to have already passed a different notability criterion for some other reason (e.g. Cynthia Nixon, who was already notable as an actress regardless of her success or failure as a political candidate) that would already have gotten them an article anyway. Or (3) they can show such a deeply unusual depth and volume and geographic range of coverage, far outstripping what every other candidate can also show, that they have a credible claim to being much more special than most other candidates, such that even if they lose the election in the end, their candidacy itself would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. There is no other way, and that's still just as true in 2020 as it was in 2016. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You assert this on every single politician AfD but you never provide convincing reasoning that these deletions actually improve the encyclopedia. If that was the standard in the past, well then WP:CCC and there needs to be a discussion about changing that ridiculous standard. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez&oldid=847688966
  2. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53169344
  3. ^ https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/23/politics/north-carolina-primary-madison-cawthorn/index.html
  • Redirect to 2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_North_Carolina#District_11. Fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate. Also see WP:CRYSTAL as to why being in a "safe seat" should not be seen as a guaranteed victory and WP:OSE for differences in why some articles may be or have been kept. But largely, an unelected candidate must get a "ton" of significant international or national coverage for their race (see Christine O'Donnell), and/or are seen as an exemplar of innovative campaign tactics that may often be seen in academic work. A redirect is an appropriate and usual outcome for a candidate on the general election ballot for a seat in the national legislature. If and when the subject wins, the article can be restored. --Enos733 (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for mostly other aforementioned reasons. He may not have been elected yet, but he has won the primary in solidly safe Republican district. In all likelihood he will be a Congressman in 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderMackle (talk • contribs) 17:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's technically an unelected candidate, but there's no reason to waste editor time on an AfD for someone who was preselected to a safe seat. If he doesn't win the next election, we can always review later. IAR keep without prejudice in the event he doesn't get elected. (I would prefer a redirect until election day.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We already are in this discussion and based on the discussion to date, this AfD is not going to be closed as a speedy keep. I strongly believe that WP:CRYSTAL applies in this situation, especially since the subject has a contested election in November. --Enos733 (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, and I'm not advocating for a speedy keep. He is clearly not yet notable and a redirect is the proper thing to do here, at least for now. That being said as I noted at a recent DRV, there's better things to do with volunteer time than to fight over candidate articles where the candidate has a very strong probability of winning the NPOL-qualifying election, even if the election will technically be contested. (For instance, there's no point on deleting the article that was recently at DRV, since that candidate also won preselection and is nearly certain to win.) US election articles really are a giant mess every couple years... SportingFlyer T·C 18:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL applies to all articles. The article is not predicting the future nor assuming/expecting/prophesying that Cawthorn will win the general election. I think having a sourced and well-written article on Cawthorn at this time, after he won the primary election, is a net gain to readers. It doesn't detract from their quest for knowledge nor does it diminish Wikipedia's mission. I don't think I'll ever understand why all this energy gets directed to deleting useful articles, and, yes, I've read all the WP: justifications and explanations. Moncrief (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have the rule that once you're notable, you're always notable, and unelected candidates frequently fail that test. It's particularly worse in the US since candidates aren't specifically tied to the party like they are in other countries. WP:CRYSTAL just means that it's too soon for him to have an article, since his lasting notability has not been demonstrated. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this is beside the point, but I don't know what you mean by "specifically tied to the party." He's the Republican candidate. He can someday choose to be a member of any other party, but so can any politician. I think you mean that the party doesn't select each party's congressional candidates; they're voted on by the people in primary elections months before the general election. That would account for your use of "preselected," which I also find confusing in the US context. Moncrief (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I mean - we typically don't get articles on unelected candidates from most other countries, since there's less of a promotional element. I've changed my mind. SportingFlyer T·C 02:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He has not been elected. The seat could be won by the Democrat candidate, or as has happened in some other races, a Republican could run as a write in and win. He could also die before the election, however unlikely. He is not notable yet, and will not be until November if he wins, and we live in uncertain enough times that him winning is not an assured thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Allowing the article on AOC before she was elected was a bad decision. So were the decisions to keep several articles on politicians running for office who only got name checked for existing. In one case we kept an article on a senate candidate who not only was trounced, but there was very little evidence of actually running a full fledged campaign.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really thing we should amend the rules to saying that in the US only candidates for governor and US senate can ever be notable only for running for office, and those always need sustained coverage that goes significantly more indepth than normal and does not name check. We should never allow candidates for US house to be considered notable until elected, except for reasons that have nothing to do with their candidacy. In hindsight I think my creation of an article on Mia Love before her election to the US house was premature, but my creation of an article on Raul Labrador was justified because he was already a state legislator. Love's mayorship was not notable enough to make her notable, nor was her speaking at the 2012 Republican National Covention. Put this another way, if Cawthorn looses having an article on him will then be seen to not be justified, so we should not have an article until we know that will not happen. The fact that I created an article on Mia Love in January of 2010 and she did not take her seat in the US house until January of 2014, thus the article somehow survived for two years after her US house loss, and existed over a year before she announced her candidacy for US congress shows A-that Mia Love did not only have a claim to notability based on her run for congress, she was actually getting extensive media coverage back in 2004 when first elected a city councilwoman becasue she was the only African-American officer holder at the time in her county (assuming Haitians fit the term "African-American", there are ways to use it as an ethnic designation that would not include Haitians), B-that our monitoring of articles on mayors in inadequate and allows too many non-notable mayors to retain articles C-that our monitoring of articles on US house candidates is inadequate, so we should go to the "if they have no notability outside of being a candidate they are never notable until elected".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles on him and aspects of the race have been discussed as notable in national media, both print and broadcast, and not just for his personal race, but for the presidential race as well. Whether he wins or loses may determine best judgment about the article, so deletion could be reconsidered following the November election results. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see why you are interpreting my vote that way, but I see it solidly as a Keep because he is notable already, given the weird differing White House endorsements and that the president made an endorsement that he tried to take back when his candidate lost -- flipping to flatter the unexpected winner and asserting that he did not even know the candidate he had endorsed... It thereby is an element of the state of the presidential campaign as it seems to be faltering. That adds to the notability for Cawthorn. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any argument which says that this should be reconsidered in November is an argument against keeping, since notability has to be lasting. Again, I think this is dumb that we're arguing over this
  • Please note that "should" is a misquote of me and "could" has a very different meaning. Seems that your misreading of this motivated you to raise an argument about the validity of my vote -- why wouldn't I attempt to clarify? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We could go round and round on this, but it feels as though some of you aren't hearing the argument (which you can disagree with, of course) that he is already notable, no matter what happens, because (a) he has overwhelmingly won a primary election against great odds (which are: the president, still overall relatively popular in NC-11, endorsed his competitor, and Cawthorn's predecessor was an influential and well-known congressman who also didn't endorse Cawthorn); and (b) Cawthorn is 24 years old, which is notable because it's basically unheard-of that someone currently under the constitutional age for Congress would win a primary race. These already-completed, non-future events have generated widespread media coverage. To me it seems strangely rigid to say that "notability" in the realm of congressional politics only equals being a congressperson or congressperson-elect. Obviously that's a point of view many people have, but that's not the argument being made for his notability by those that don't share that point of view. Moncrief (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those arguments are source-based, though, and there's no reason why either of those things couldn't be included in the article about the election. What we require is lasting notability - while I do generally agree this article's not really worth arguing over since the odds that he will have lasting notability is high, there is also an argument to be made for consistency. Winning a preselection, even a contested one where you weren't the first choice of the party and even as someone younger than usual, doesn't necessarily grant lasting notability. SportingFlyer T·C 03:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "preselection" and "the choice of the party," it sounds strange to American ears. He won a primary. I suppose that's kind of like a "pre-selection," but it's not a term that's used in American politics. As for "the choice of the party," that doesn't really work in primary elections. You can be endorsed by individuals or local political organizations, but there's no "choice of the party" in the way there is in a parliamentary system. Your arguments are odd in the context of determining the notability of this particular individual in his particular political context. Moncrief (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the argument, but I do not agree with it. While I do not agree completely with the ten year test for determining notability, our community recognizes that once notable, always notable. The challenge with any unelected candidate is that merely filing for office is not an event that makes an individual notable. In the United States alone, and assuming only two candidates on the general election ballot, there will be 469 losing candidates this year alone (but there will be more because of third party candidates). While a handful of them will likely run for election in 2022, they are no longer public figures, and unless they were to pass WP:GNG for another activity, an unelected candidate is only known for one event, which in this case is their 2020 campaign. This is why the community has pages about the congressional race - because the race is notable, even if the candidate(s) are not. --Enos733 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Candidate has received significant coverage by reliable sources related to his run. Now that he is the Republican nominee in a safe R district, his win is assured. This individual is no underdog, insurgent, or perennial candidate. KidAd (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Safe" seat is not a notability claim. Candidates who were "favoured" to win seats that were considered "safe" for their parties have lost elections, or been forced to resign for various reasons before election day, or even died mid-campaign — and it's a WP:CRYSTAL violation to say that it's guaranteed that none of those things will happen this time. So "safe" seat or not, a candidate is not permanently notable until he's actually declared the winner after the ballots have been counted on election day. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winning the primary for what is considered a safe Republican seat, at 24 yrs old, against the endorsement of the sitting US President is notable in itself - add to that all the ratings agency's rate this seat as safe, in reality if the page is deleted now it will likely be subsequently recreated in November. Would also add that a page for other politicians have been created in advance of their election due to the primary results being notable including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Marie Newman (admittedly both defeated sitting incumbents, but the principle was that their selection was notable in of itself) Guyb123321 (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The candidate has now won the primary and will most likely win the 2020 general election. It would be absurd to delete the article.Michael E Nolan (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So this would be a Keep then? KidAd (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies GNG with references in article, additional NPOL not applicable.Djflem (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we've kept other major party nominees before like AOC, and Cawthorn is definitely garnering significant publicity for a major party candidate or nominee since he's got an intriguing story and he defeated the Trump-backed candidate. He will likely win the general election given all of the election fundamentals he's got in his favor. He seems to meet WP:GNG. I also don't like the notion of arbitrarily picking out major party nominees in safe seats (who've garnered significant media attention for their backgrounds to make them notable) and then open up AfDs when we've already set the standard with AOC. Note: there are more AOC like major party nominees in NY who don't have AfDs right now. We need to stay with our standards like it or not (or have a discussion to change them and treat both Democrats and Republicans with the same standard). Philotimo (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AOC did not set any precedent that applies to anybody but her. She was a standalone special case by virtue of having already garnered such a massive volume of international press coverage that she was already one of the most famous American politicians in the entire world well before election day. And no, I'm not making shit up, either: months before the election, she really was already a household name in Canada and Australia and the United Kingdom, already much more internationally famous than any politician in the entire US not named Trump or Pelosi. The regular consensus, that candidates do not get articles just for being candidates, still applies to every candidate in the United States who cannot show that he or she is already an internationally famous household name.
The problem is that if we keep Madison Cawthorn just because he has campaign coverage, then by definition we have to keep an article about every single candidate in every single district in the entire United States on the very same grounds, because no candidate ever fails to have campaign coverage. But that's not how we do things here: the test that a candidate has to meet, to warrant permanent coverage here, is that his candidacy is a special case of significantly greater notability than most other candidacies in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. In a nutshell, the test that a candidate has to pass, to merit a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate, is to imagine that he loses the election in the end, and then dies the very next day so that he never has another opportunity to accomplish anything else more notable than being a losing election candidate, and then show a convincing reason why his candidacy would still be so uniquely notable that people will still be looking for information about it in 2030 anyway. Any candidate who can't pass that test has to wait until he or she wins the seat; only candidates who have a strongly credible claim to being special cases get articles in advance of election day. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:IAR. I'm sick of the idea that ONLY elected candidates are allowed to have articles, as well as the fallacy that "if we keep this, we gotta keep all unelected candidates." Cawthorn has received enough coverage in reliable sources that, even if he loses (which is a possibility), he is still deserving of an article due to the coverage and the historic nature of his primary win. It is honestly setting a ridiculously high bar that any candidate needs to be internationally recognized to have an article pre-election. We don't have that standard for other wikiarticles. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody gives a flying fig what you're sick of. "If we keep this, we gotta keep all unelected candidates" is not a "fallacy" — it's the stone cold truth that every candidate in every district across the entire country always receives enough campaign coverage to at least attempt the argument that they've passed GNG and are therefore exempted from actually having to pass NPOL. So if that were how it worked, then "every candidate gets an article and NPOL means nothing anymore" is exactly where that approach lands. So, again, the notability test for candidates is not "campaign coverage exists", it is "the candidate has received so much more coverage than the norm that he has a credible claim to being much more special than most other candidates, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance". Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would also make the encyclopaedia even more US-centric. SportingFlyer T·C 01:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a prime example of a fallacy, in particular slippery slope. We are discussing the notability of Cawthorn here, not all political candidates. The fact that he would be the youngest Congressman and unseated a Trump-approved candidate makes him more notable than probably 75% of candidates. We try to follow WP:GNG here, not some arbitrarily high standard you like. No one is doubting that campaign coverage exists that we can write a stub on many candidates. I think this is kind of a special case, along with AOC (though not to the same extent). ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So if that were how it worked, then "every candidate gets an article and NPOL means nothing anymore" is exactly where that approach lands. Yes, that should be the goal. All topics with sufficient coverage to write useful articles are worthy of articles. That's the whole point of notability to begin with! Your standards are arbitrary and provide no reasoning for how these deletions improve the encyclopedia. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should read WP:NOT, which directly contradicts your statement. Just because a topic passes WP:GNG doesn't mean the topic automatically qualifies for their own article. It's especially the case when concerns exist about recentism, promotionalism, and a lack of enduring notability, and why AfDs about people who were only candidates are generally uncontroversially deleted as long as they're not recent candidates. SportingFlyer T·C 21:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the most part, all I am reading is WP:OSE. When the community has kept an unelected candidate, there is usually another factor, especially a tremendous amount of international coverage of a candidate. For AOC, she defeated a member of the House Democratic leadership. For other candidates, they are often kept if they are running unopposed, are treated as the exemplar candidate (so they are emblematic of all other candidates from a particular year), or commit a gaffe so outrageous that the coverage is outsized (see Christine O'Donnell). And in nearly every case, the community is split on whether they should be kept. In this particular case, I do not see any identifiable reason that this subject, should they lose election, will remain notable if they never hold an elected office. The case made here is that the subject is young (but not the youngest) and defeated a same-party candidate running for an open seat. While there is a lot of words spilled over a candidate, whom I agree is likely to win, making this conversation moot in November, stripping all of the veneer, there is nothing that makes this subject more special than most, thus failing our general community standards about unelected candidates. And all of the things that do make the candidate unique should be added into the page about the election. --Enos733 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Moncrief and Eddy. Bearcat's argument about the ten-year test doesn't convince me and never will. I see no reason why the GNG should be thrown out the window in the case of political candidates. The point of notability isn't to arbitrarily decide who is "worthy" of a Wikipedia article. It's to help determine whether significant coverage exists to write a useful article. The point of the SNGs shouldn't be to further constrain that - it should be to establish notability for clearly inclusion-worthy subjects that are unlikely to have their own indepth SIGCOV for whatever reason (things like hospitals, professors, etc). Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no size limit, and I really wish this crusade to delete all political candidates would come to an end already. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to an article on the election or district. The subject fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of people, per those policies. All the sources for the subject cover him in the context of the election (more specifically the Republican primary), which is a single event. If he loses the election then he will not have any enduring notability whatsoever. Of course if he wins he will have enduring notability as a member of the House of Representatives, and he might become notable if he loses if he goes on to have a successful political career, but it would be pure speculation on our part to keep the article on the assumption that one of these will happen. Yes, he has got some media coverage, but that doesn't overcome this argument. Both WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS describe situations in which we don't have articles on someone who has enough media coverage to pass the GNG. I think it's significant that editors do not write articles on people whose only claim to fame is that they lost an election decades ago, it's only current candidates who people think are notable. Taking the long view we shouldn't have articles on this type of subject. Hut 8.5 20:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, the election hasn't happened yet, so we can't say that he's a failed candidate. There are plenty of articles on people known for one event, and I'm not sure I'd consider Cawthorn a low-profile person anyways, though that's debatable. He has received more coverage than most primary winners, and not just from local sources. Just curious, but what do you think is the level of coverage needed for a candidate to have an article? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bar for that is Christine O'Donnell, who got so bloody much coverage that to this day, fully 10 years later, our article about her is still longer, and still cites twice as many distinct sources than, our article about the actual incumbent senator she lost to. Bearcat (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bar is Christine O'Donnell according to whom? Where was that consensus established? I see you say this over and over and I've never seen anything to back it up. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 01:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't keep the article on the grounds that he might win the election - WP:CRYSTAL. There are articles on people only notable for a single event, but the event has to be very high profile - think assassinations of major figures. If he isn't elected to the House of Representatives in November then he will likely remain low profile. He's received a short spate of coverage in response to him upsetting a more favoured candidate in the primary, but that doesn't translate into enduring notability. Are people going to be writing about this primary win years from now? I think not. Hut 8.5 06:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Why would editors do such an obvious disservice to readers in deleting this page? He's going to win the general election. If somehow he doesn't win or gets hit by lighting before then, you can delete it. To blindly follow the "candidates don't get their own page" is such a lame argument and harmful to the project. Readers are coming here seeking links and info on someone who has national attention and you want to delete it because you're afraid of what this might mean for other candidates who haven't yet taken office. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the piece I don't think I'll ever understand about deletionism for the sake of deletionism. Why? How does it further the mission of Wikipedia to delete well-sourced, well-written articles about people about whom readers may be looking for information? Wikipedia is not paper. We're not trying to fit an encyclopedia into 10 volumes. How does it increase the conveyance of information -- which is the purpose of Wikipedia -- to delete articles that have value as information-providers? This is overly dramatic, but deletionism qua deletionism makes me think of the editors of the Newspeak dictionary in "1984" whose job it is to eliminate words. That's not so much a fair analogy -- it's too harsh -- but a thought experiment, like the "ten year test." (P.S. I would argue that it doesn't matter if Cawthorn is elected in the general election, so my wish is that people didn't use that as an argument, since his being elected in November is unknowable and thus WP:CRYSTAL. This article can stand on its own as a well-sourced reference to someone about whom people may be looking for more data due to events that have already occurred.) Moncrief (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does it further the mission of Wikipedia to indiscriminately keep articles about everybody who ever ran for political office regardless of whether they won or lost? Once the election is over, there will be no sustained public interest in the losers anymore, unless they have some other notability claim besides just running for office per se. Candidates aren't exempted from having to pass NPOL just because they have some evidence of campaign coverage — literally every candidate in every election, in every country that has elections, always has some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked we would always have to keep an article about every single person who was ever a candidate for any elected office at all regardless of whether they won or lost. What possible reason is there why that would be desirable?
And incidentally, you're applying the ten year test backward. The way it works isn't that people get to keep an article until it's been definitively proven that they would fail the 10YT — it's that people don't get to have an article at all until it's been definitively proven that they would pass the 10YT. Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be desirable because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; our goal is to be a repository of knowledge. There is no size limit here; we're not trying to fit into a bookshelf worth of volumes. The burden of proof is on those advocating deletion to demonstrate how the deletion of the article would IMPROVE Wikipedia. "Lack of public interest" 10 years from now, does not mean it's absence would improve the encyclopedia. You keep bringing the same points up again and again and again, but you have never once made a convincing argument that these deletions actually improve the encyclopedia, not detract from it. If there is RS coverage sufficient to write 100 million articles, then our goal should be to have 100 million articles. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 01:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no sustained public interest and Cawthorn loses in November, then this article will not be particularly widely read. Instead it will be out there unobtrusively on the internet, one of the 6.1 million articles in the English-language Wikipedia and one of the hundreds of millions (billions?) of webpages on the web. If one of the billion or so users of the English Wikipedia thinks someday, "Who was that really young guy who won the primary in South Carolina that stopped Trump's uninterrupted winning streak of primary endorsements?" then they'll be able to google the information and find this article. I'm not seeing the harm, just as I don't see the harm in other articles I've worked on that are arguably very obscure, such as those about, say, uninhabited islands in Lake Winnipeg. Honestly, our philosophies of what Wikipedia is, are so far apart that further discussion is probably not fruitful here. We can just await the neutral admin's decision. Moncrief (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One thing you likely have not considered is that low-traffic articles about topics of low public visibility are extremely vulnerable to the addition of vandalism, which can go undetected for weeks, months or even years if the article isn't generating enough traffic to control it. Our quality control model works very well on high-visibility articles like Beyoncé or Justin Trudeau, because any vandalism to those articles will get caught and reverted almost instantaneously — but below a certain level of fame, it falls down on its ass very quickly, and vandalism to a low-interest article can literally stand for a very long time without being noticed at all. I once found an article about a person of low public prominence which had literally spent three full years calling its topic a cannibal pedophile who smuggled children into nuclear power plants to rape, kill and eat them — and no, I am not making that up, it really happened. I dealt with it as soon as I saw it, needless to say, but that doesn't change the fact that we still published libellous content for three years because nobody had caught it sooner. That's the risk: in an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we cannot guarantee that every "anybody" is editing responsibly — and there is a level of prominence below which we cannot guarantee the necessary degree of vigilance anymore.

Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything you've written in this thread has no relevance here. This isn't a "low traffic" article by any measure. There's no "risk of vandalism". Claiming that keeping this important entry will mean that we "keep articles about everybody who ever ran for political office regardless of whether they won or lost" is baseless. I'm sure you'll continue to push for deletion of candidates, which is a tenable position for politicians who haven't even won their primary and have no notability other than the fact that they've declared. Which is most certainly not the case here. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is the full text of the WP:NPOL guideline:
    The following are presumed to be notable:
    * Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[12] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
    * Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
    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 general notability guideline.
  • Nowhere in here does it say that political candidates are required to meet NPOL. Nowhere in here does it say there is some extra special notability requirement above and beyond the GNG when determining whether coverage is sufficient to establish notability. Nowhere in here does it say that "sustained international" coverage is required. Nowhere in here does it say that the subject must still be of sustained public interest in 10 years.[a] And certainly nowhere does it say that the candidates must achieve Christine O'Donnell levels of coverage. NPOL is about categories of politicians presumed to be notable even if they don't meet GNG. It's not some extra hurdle that's required; it's an extra route to notability for politicians who fail GNG. If an editor repeatedly insists that their position on NPOL is the "community consensus", even when the actual text of the SNG contradicts them repeatedly, the onus is on them to prove it, not just repeat it over and over and over again. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 02:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, NPOL is not an "extra" route to notability for politicians who "fail" GNG. Every politician who passes NPOL, by definition, literally always also passes GNG, because people in NPOL-passing roles always get GNG-worthy media coverage. Their articles may not always look like they pass GNG, because we're not always on the ball about actually finding and using all the sources that the person actually has — but if a person really held an NPOL-passing role, then they virtually always have GNG-passing sources out there regardless of the current state of our article about them. In actual fact, if an article claimed that its subject passed NPOL, but the person was such a GNG failure that we couldn't even verify the claim in the first place, then the article would be deleted as a likely hoax.
As for "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 general notability guideline", the thing you need to keep in mind is that if the existence of some campaign coverage is all it takes to get a non-winning candidate over GNG and thus exempt them from having to pass NPOL, then that sentence has automatically contradicted itself, because literally every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage. Which is exactly why what I'm saying is not incorrect, and NPOL does not contradict it: if the existence of campaign coverage is all it takes to make a candidate notable, then every candidate is always notable and nobody ever actually has to be measured against NPOL at all anymore. Which is why the consensus around the notability of unelected candidates has always been that it is not enough just to show that some campaign coverage exists — making an unelected candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article on GNG grounds does require evidence that their candidacy is substantially more notable than most other people's candidacies. Every candidate always has campaign coverage — what every candidate doesn't always have is a reason why their candidacy is of enduring significance that will still be of public interest ten years from now regardless of whether they win or lose. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Actually, they often are to those who study American politics - that's a reason in itself. The general public doesn't care about all the tens of thousands of species of insects - many are only of interest to specialists. That doesn't mean we delete those articles.
  • Keep under the "I, a random person, have heard of him" standard. He's gotten tons of media coverage in the last couple weeks, and when people read about him, they'll naturally turn to Wikipedia for further information. To not have an article for them to read would be a disservice to the reader and an embarrassment to the project. There is no notability requirement that overrules common sense and public interest. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t AOC and that Texas guy get pages before they was elected? He’s almost certainly going to win so might as well keep it up instead of just re-writing it again 4 months from now.

What Texas guy are you talking about? Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Dan Crenshaw. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 05:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for many of the reasons previously noted. When I first read the story of his victory I ran to Wikipedia to learn more about him. All I found was a little stub. Little by little I saw more info added. Eventually, I saw that info organized and the page formatted. I am grateful for the efforts. He'll get more coverage as the election cycle progresses and more information will come available up to and beyond his obstensible victory in November. — Ssbnj (talk) 0553, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment, I've already voiced my opinion to keep Cawthorn's page, but I think several more general points need to be addressed with regards to this particular AfD thread. 1.) There's a recurring theme on here that by keeping Cawthorn's page we somehow establish the wrong precedent, which I think is an entirely false premise. In recent memory, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–NY 14th) and Dan Crenshaw (R–TX 2nd) were created before their respective general election wins but after their primary victories in 2018. Jamaal Bowman (probably, D–NY 16th) was created before his primary win in 2020. Paula Jean Swearengin (D–WV senate) was created prior to her primary lose to Joe Manchin in 2018. Tony Campbell (R–MD senate) was created after his primary win in 2018. Christine O'Donnell was created in 2008 heading into her second election. Dave Brat (R–VA 7th) was created after his primary win in 2014. Ilhan Omar was created leading up to her successful state house run in 2016. Jo Rae Perkins (R–OR senate) was created after her primary win in 2020. Mondaire Jones (probably, D–NY 17th) was created before his primary win in 2020. Lauren Boebert (probably, R–CO 3rd) was created after her primary win in 2020. Etc... there's nothing precedent setting about keeping this page. Far-less notable candidates to Cawthorn have made our cut, like Campbell or Swearengin, so it's odd to just focus on him. I don't really see the difference between Boebert, Bowman, Cawthorn, or Jones with regards to their supposed notability divergence. It's really quite subtle. 2.) If there's reliable sources behind them (which I've already voiced my opinion that Cawthorn has) and they have a lasting influence like winning (probably Cawthorn), becoming a prominent perennial candidate, attracting notability through association (like Boebert or Perkins with QAnon), or be another means (like military service, personal story, profession, etc. which Cawthorn also meets), i.e. basically general notability guidelines for lasting significance, then it seems like an additional barrier to content creation if we just arbitrary hault their creation. And no, that doesn't mean every candidate or nominee should or would get their own page since most of them don't have anywhere near the level of notability that we're talking about with regards to Boebert, Bowman, Cawthorn, or Jones. Note: I also personally find some of them such as Campbell or Swearengin as borderline cases in terms of notability. 3.) I really feel that we should close this AfD immediately as keep unless we begin AfDs for Boebert, Bowman, and Jones too. I really find it hard to rationalize an AfD for Cawthorn but not for Boebert, Bowman, and Jones since it's quite hard to realistically splice their individual notabilities to justify Jones but not Cawthorn for instance. Philotimo (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence of other articles doesn't imply that this article should be kept as well. Possibly some or all of those articles should be deleted. Many of those articles are for people who are now in Congress and it wouldn't be appropriate to delete them now anyway. Hut 8.5 07:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really arguing that, i.e. just because x then y must as well, I'm explaining that we've constantly allowed major party candidates with notable coverage to remain so I'm pushing back on the narrative presented throughout this AfD that we're somehow establishing a precedent with Cawthorn. We're not. Also, I'm noting if we do remove Cawthorn's page then we're actually establishing a new precedent, and we'll have to open up AfDs on at least Boebert, Bowman, and Jones to boot. Philotimo (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you're arguing that if we delete article X then we have to delete article Y, which is basically the same argument. AfD doesn't operate based on precedent and each case is considered individually. We have deleted an awful lot of articles about failed US political candidates, and to the extent that there is a precedent it's the other way round e.g. WP:POLOUTCOMES Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged. Hut 8.5 12:02, 2 July 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madison_Cawthorn&oldid=966417560"