Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Sonneborn

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018. From the headcount it looks like 3 keeps, 4 redirects, 3 delete (at least 1 OK with a merger) and 1 merge, which results in a slight support for removing the article. In terms of strength of argument the mentions in international media support the notion that this wasn't a normal lost-in-the-primary candidacy but there is evidently disagreement on whether tha justifies an article. I don't see a particularly compelling reason to prefer deletion to redirection here and WP:BLP1E doesn't either. Judging whether a political candidate meets BLP1E or whether their coverage will be enduring three days/weeks after the election is hard. The content appears to already exist at the redirect target. With the headcount in mind (there are really no killer arguments here) this is a redirect case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Sonneborn

[edit]

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

Ethan Sonneborn (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)

A clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN (and WP:BLP1E). StAnselm (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: As per the worldwide coverage on his candidacy, his candidacy is special because he is 14. I would say that the evidence posted before you even posted your comment has already solved that potential problem. He clearly passes WP:GNG. Ross-c (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A person can technically pass GNG and still fail WP:BLP1E and the ten-year test for enduring significance. Our job is not to keep articles about everybody who happens to get their name into the current news cycle — our job is to keep articles about people who accomplished something significant enough that people will still be looking for an article about them in 2028, like holding a notable political office rather than just running for one and losing and garnering a bit of BLP1E human interest coverage in the moment that fades out as soon as they lose. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, but since we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL, I think it is difficult to say in this instance whether or not there will be enduring significance. After all, the kid isn't even in high school yet. Who knows what will come in the future? --BrianCUA (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, the community treats WP:CRYSTAL the other way - that we don't make assumptions about what the subject may or may not do in the future, or what elections they may or may not win in the future. As I wrote below, any pertinent information about the subject can be placed in the article about the election. Taking a fresh look at the page, there is a case that some of the information could be created in a page entitled Teenage political candidates or something similar that fits under Youth Politics because that is what most of the current content is about. --Enos733 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out by Enos733, CRYSTAL works the other way. We don't keep articles about people who haven't cleared our notability standards just because of what they might achieve in the future — we would have to keep an article about every single person living on this planet if "but they might accomplish something more notable in the future" were a basis for inclusion in and of itself. Rather, we keep or delete articles based on what's already true today, and if they do achieve something more notable and encyclopedic in the future, then we permit recreation because the notability equation will have changed. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018 as a usual and expected outcome for losing candidates, since all coverage is within the context of the election WP:BLP1E. While there is a certain novelty of a 14 year old running for statewide office, any important information can be added to the page about the election. I do remain convinced that verifiable biographical information can be added to the election pages (more than the frequent one line description and that editors can add additional prose about the context and issues of the campaign). --Enos733 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Enos733: As shown by the coverage, he is not just a normal losing candidate and hence normal procedures do not apply. Ross-c (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ross-c, and that is why I didn't create articles for the other two losing candidates. This was not a typical case. --BrianCUA (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given a dispute over whether the nature of coverage is beyond standard NPOL coverage of a candidate's traits and thus Keep/Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 14 year olds are normally not notable, and losing candidates in primary elections are normally not notable. I can't support keeping this article based on the conjunction of these (no matter how unusual), when there is clearly no other claim of notability. I'd reluctantly be OK with a redirect to Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Worth a mention in the gubernatorial election article. I don't think redirection is proper due to the crystal clear WP:BLP1E failure, more than most losing candidates due to his age (almost all of the sources are "novelty" articles), but the information about his candidacy can be included in other places in the encyclopedia, as mentioned above. SportingFlyer talk 11:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per SportingFlyer. Worth a mention maybe, but this is just WP:TOOSOON. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Err, this was a tough one. At first I was strongly leaning towards keeping. There is a ton of news coverage all over. However, after thinking about this hard and looking into this situation further, I really do think this is a case of WP:BLP1E. He's likely going to receive very little or no news coverage in the near future - it's only this particular event that makes them notable. Of course, if more news coverage does appear about him for another event, we could always restore the article and add the new information, as this would likely mean he would now be considered notable. I really do think we should find some way to merge some more of the content into Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018, though. After all, he did receive a ton of news coverage, and because of this, even if he's not notable enough to have a standalone article, it certainly seems like the page should have more information about him than simply Ethan Sonneborn, high school freshman. But then again, I'm not really sure where the best place to incorporate that information would be. I strongly oppose to deleting the redirect - mostly per WP:CHEAP and just common sense.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:SkyGazer 512 How is he different, in the WP:BLP1E context, to John Hinckley Jr.? --BrianCUA (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Briancua - unfortunately, I haven't had much time to look into that article (and probably won't), but to me it looks like there was news coverage for several different events, although many of them just occurred because of his attempted murder. If you think it's a clear case of WP:BLP1E, feel free to discuss on the talk page or start an merge discussion. Just fyi, there was actually a merge discussion that took place for the page 10 years ago resulting in a consensus not to merge. See here. I apologize if you wanted a more thorough explanation than this. But I will say that articles usually shouldn't be kept or deleted just because other articles exist or don't exist: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thanks, --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 18:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chowbok's oppose !vote in the merge discussion explains better than I did why the subject is probably notable: "Not only notable for the assassination attempt but also for his murder trial, which is significant in legal history for the ruling of the insanity verdict." So I would say that article wouldn't be a case of BLP1E.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 18:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't making an OTHERSTUFF argument. Hinkley is the example used in BLP1E. --BrianCUA (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His participation - only a few percent of the vote - was not "substantial." SportingFlyer talk 17:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This novelty candidate placed a distant 5th place in the party primary, lagging far behind "blank votes," which came in fourth. His hometown did vote for him. However, I have no objection if User:SkyGazer 512 wants to add some reliable sources to the description of Sonnerbornat the REDIRECT page Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, SportingFlyer, but WP:POLITICIAN says you need to get significant coverage, not a significant number of votes. He did. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If an article fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NPOL doesn't save it. SportingFlyer talk 18:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I don't think it fails WP:BLP1E. You have to meet three criteria. The third one doesn't apply here. The event was significant, and his role was well documented. In fact, he got a lot more press than did some of the other candidates. He was also treated as an equal during the campaign.--BrianCUA (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 21:42, 31 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ethan_Sonneborn&oldid=858589696"