Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India Walton

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep per WP:AVALANCHE: an overwhelming amount of support, lending to an early closure. Consensus is that the subject is unlikely to become again a low-profile individual, and has been the subject of fairly significant press coverage; her notability as a political figure with significant press coverage strongly meets WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. WP:BLP1E's criteria do not apply here. Reminder that problems with the content of the article should be brought up on the article's talk page. Nominator has also acted in an uncivil manner in the discussion. (non-admin closure) SWinxy (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India Walton

edit

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

India Walton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person whose only claim of notability, as things stand today, is having won her political party's primary to be its candidate in a pending mayoral election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- a person has to hold a notable political office, not just run for one, to pass WP:NPOL, and the historic distinction that she will represent if she wins an election she hasn't won yet is not in and of itself a reason to treat her candidacy as more special than everybody else's candidacies.
Furthermore, when I first saw this article it was treating her final victory as already a done deal, by templating her as if she was already the mayor-elect -- but no matter how likely it may seem that she'll be the winner in the end, Wikipedia cannot act as if it's already a foregone conclusion. There have been elections where the presumed frontrunner died, or withdrew from the election for various reasons, or turned out to be such a uniquely terrible or scandal-prone candidate that the voters went against their usual partisan leanings to produce a surprise victory for the other party -- so no matter how much of an advantage the candidate may seem to have, Wikipedia simply can't treat her as the winner until she's actually declared the winner in November.
Since the general election is less than six months away, I wouldn't necessarily object to draftifying this so that it can be moved back into mainspace quickly if she does win -- but as of today she's still only a candidate, and that isn't grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia per se. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Her win is one of the biggest socialist victories in American history and is all over the front pages of mainstream media. Are you mad bro? 15:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Winning a primary is not grounds for a Wikipedia article per se, and having a blip of "person wins primary" coverage the morning after the primary just makes her a WP:BLP1E. Not mad at all bro.
Here's how you figure out whether a person has earned a Wikipedia article or not: imagine that she dies of a heart attack tomorrow morning, so that she never accomplishes anything else more notable than winning a primary to be the candidate for an office she was not able to actually hold due to her death. Are you still able to come up with a credible reason why even if that happens, people would still need an article about her to exist ten years from now anyway? That's the test she has to pass, not just the existence of a momentary blip of "morning after" coverage in a context that isn't inherently notable — winning the mayoral election would pass the ten year test, certainly, but simply being a candidate in it does not.
And also, since America has already had numerous socialist officeholders, an avowed socialist winning a primary hardly qualifies as "one of the biggest socialist victories in American history" by a long shot. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Counterpoint - you just created a page for this dumb television series that hasn't even been filmed yet - Shoresy. Who are you to judge what is notable? And are you threatening the life of a politician? Sure sounds like it. 15:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The base notability test for television shows is not "has won election to and thereby served in a notable office", it is "has been formally upfronted by a television network as a show it's going to broadcast within the upcoming season" — and we have a rule about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which clearly explains why "this person has to have an article if this other completely unrelated topic that has absolutely nothing to do with it has an article" is not a productive or useful argument.
And I'm not even going to engage the absurd claim that a "death threat" can be extracted from anything I said, except to warn you that you can be blocked from editing Wikipedia at all if you persist in bad faith lines of attack. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Do not delete this article. She will become the first socialist mayor of a large city in the US since 1960. The bad editors of this site really suck. You know who you are. You make this site worse by the day. AllThatJazz2012 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - this Wikipedia article is created in order to bias the election in favor of someone. Encylopedia such as Wikipedia is not a social platform for political agitation BEFORE some election is over. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)— EleOk6e3ih (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The primary's already over and she'd be unopposed in the general election.15:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Even if there isn't a Republican candidate on the ballot at all (and I'm not finding any sources which are saying that there won't be), there can still be write-in candidates — so it's not at all a given that she'll be running unopposed. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This makes Walton a presumptive mayor. In a city where every mayor since 1966 has been a Democrat, and a city that recently voted 77% for Biden, the chances that Walton will fail to become mayor are theoretically possible, although low enough that we can call Walton the presumptive mayor. Legolover26 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Front page of the New York Times today. The "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" applies equally to the highly unlikely notion subject will suffer a fatal heart attack tomorrow or that a write-in candidate could defeat her. At issue is what's the default: delete and recreate later or keep and delete later; the latter is far easier in terms of process and efficiency (for non-admins anyway) than the former.-Brian Dell (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not just indiscriminately keep people just because their names have appeared in newspapers — rather, we also take into account the context of what the person was getting coverage for. The current coverage, which is just morning-after-the-primaries coverage of the winner of a primary, just makes her a WP:BLP1E as things currently stand, and does not render her a person who has passed our standards for permanent notability yet. Determining when a person has crossed the line to earning permanent coverage in an encyclopedia is a question of "if what's already true today is the most notable thing she ever accomplishes in her life, and she never accomplishes anything more, then is what's already true today enough to earn permanent coverage in an encyclopedia or not?" Winning the mayoral election, and thereby serving as mayor, would clearly pass that test — but simply being her party's candidate for mayor does not. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a promo website. Do Wikipedia receive payment to do promo add? In Facebook they indicate promo content as "paid add". This is encyclopedia, so delete and recreate later should be default. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)— EleOk6e3ih (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This does not correctly interpret WP:BLP1E, which can only be used to deny articles if all three condition are met. Walton fails condition 2, because Walton is not likely to remain a low-profile individual. If Walton becomes mayor, Walton will not be a low-profile individual. Although theoretically Walton could be prevented from being mayor by a heart attack, a write-in, a third party, a Republican, a nuclear strike, or just by dropping out, the likelihood of all of these events combined is arguably well under 50%, the minimum probability threshold to consider those events likely. Legolover26 (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, another fortune teller. Is this a swarm paid to do political promo work? EleOk6e3ih (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)— EleOk6e3ih (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • @EleOk6e3ih: Well since I have nine great articles, over forty Did You Knows, and have been active since 2017 I would say no. Meanwhile you have a grand total of 21 edits and most of them revolve around AfDs. So please tell me who you are a sockpuppet of. Jon698 (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly, she is notable. The idea that India Walton is not going to win the election where she is running unopposed is grasping at straws. Also from Wikipedia:Notability_(politics): A person is notable if "The person is a major local political figures who have received significant press coverage outside their specific region." There are stories about her victory in NYTimes, Washington Post and NPR this morning. Surely more stories are soon to follow. Thus, she cleary meets this criterion. beanstash (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elections in which the presumed frontrunner was not the final winner in the end really can and really do happen in the world. There really have been candidates who went over so poorly with the voters that they actually handed the victory to another candidate who should not ordinarily have been able to win under normal circumstances (e.g. Scott Brown winning a "safe Democratic" senate seat in 2010, entirely because the "certain to win" Democratic candidate ran a terrible campaign; Lisa Murkowski winning as a write-in candidate in the same year after losing her party's primary, because the official Republican candidate who "should" have won was too extreme even for Alaska). And there have been elections where a candidate died before election day, or had to step down because of a scandal or a personal health issue. So just because a candidate is favoured to win does not mean it's always a foregone conclusion that they will win — so we don't keep articles about candidates just because they're favoured to win, we wait until the election is over and they have won. Which is why it isn't that I have to prove that one of those things will happen here before this can be deleted — it's that you have to prove that one of these things definitely won't happen here before this can be kept.
And as of right now, all of the coverage she has still just makes her a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Her win in the primary is in itself significant. If you actually read the WP:BLP1E guideline you keep citing here, it applies only to individuals who remain, and are likely to remain, low-profile individuals. Clearly this is not the case here, as Jon698 has also pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanstash (talk • contribs) 20:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bdell555. I think this is splitting hairs; she's going to be the mayor and people are interested to know about her now, not just when she's inaugurated. Moreover, we don't lose anything by using this window of greater attention to build a higher-quality page. Note that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's page was also created the night she won her primary (and she wasn't even unopposed in November 2018), so keeping this article wouldn't be unprecedented. Davey2116 (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AOC wasn't kept just for winning a primary per se — she was kept because her coverage had already internationalized so massively and so enduringly that people in foreign countries, who literally couldn't name a single sitting US Congressperson if they tried, still knew about AOC. She was kept because she was already the third most famous American politician in the world, behind Obama and Trump but well ahead of anybody else running for any office that year, not because winning a primary is grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I usually agree with Bearcat's AfD nominations on unelected politicians, but this is not one of those cases. Walton has been declared the winner of the primary, and that is tantamount to election as there are no Republicans running in the general election. She likely meets GNG now, and there's no benefit for the project or our readers to say she can't have an article until November. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This feels like Wiki-lawyering on a technicality. She's almost certain to become the mayor of a major city, and it's hard to imagine a situation that prevents her from becoming mayor which doesn't also make her more notable. We generally allow articles about "presumptive" office-holders before they've been sworn in; this situation is similar. Happy to revisit if the presumption is invalidated. pburka (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't keep articles about presumed frontrunners in advance of general election ballots being counted. Once they have been declared the winner of the election we don't have to wait until they're formally sworn into the office before we're allowed to start the article, but that's not the same thing — they still have to be declared the actual winner of the general election first, and don't get kept just because they're favoured to win an election that hasn't happened yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say she was favored: I said she's presumptive. The US President is also presumptive until an obscure college elects them and the results are confirmed by Congress, but nobody argues that the presumptive president isn't notable. Note that news reports are using the same "presumptive" language, e.g. WIVB and The Week. pburka (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. Criterion 2 of WP:NPOL also states that the subject is notable if there is significant coverage in the media. The fact that she is a socialist, which is rare in and of itself, has generated this coverage. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of some campaign coverage does not exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL — every candidate in every election everywhere can always claim to have enough campaign coverage to exempt themselves from having to pass NPOL, so if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took then we would always have to keep an article about everybody who was ever a candidate for anything. So the test isn't "campaign coverage exists", it is "the general election has already taken place and the person has already won it". Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She faces no general election opposition, meaning she is essentially the mayor-elect barring extraordinary circumstances. Even if the article is deleted, it can just be reposted in a couple months when she officially becomes mayor. Deleting it seems so redundant and almost petty, like she is going to be mayor it's not like she is some random candidate. (Stanloona2020) 17:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would argue for a delete if there was a major-party candidate - any candidate, even one with a slim chance of winning - opposing her in the general. But there isn't. So she's essentially mayor-elect. As for the hypotheticals - she could die before taking office, for instance...okay? WP:CRYSTAL cuts both ways here. Media coverage is treating her as mayor-elect, so it's bizarre to say Wikipedia shouldn't follow suit for specious reasons.I am the radiohead (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:POLITICIAN says, "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." In other words, being the Democratic nominee for mayor does not automatically establish the subject as notable per WP:POLITICIAN, but being the subject of articles from various media sources could nevertheless establish her as notable per WP:GNG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC
  • Strong Keep. This is basically Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez all over again. Elishop (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Please forgive format errors; I am a first-time user). First, let me report that I am in Buffalo and came to the India Walton article simply to get information by which to respond to questions from out of town, and found what I wanted; the article was very useful. I suspect others will do the same, since Walton is a pretty new political figure. Usefulness seems to me an argument for keeping the article. Second, I have read the discussion and find the newswothiness arguments more convincing. The odds for Walton becoming Mayor are overwhelming, and the primary selection results themselves are a political earthquake, changing the political landscape, probably permanently, in NY's 2nd largest city. These election results are a really big deal, and my wife and I are getting inquiries from people in other states asking us to interpret the event. HartBuffalo (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)HartBuffalo[reply]
  • Keep India Walton is clearly notable beyond the average winner of a mayoral primary. She has received extensive coverage in the news media due to her upset victory and because she represents a political ethos that until recently would have resulted in pariah status. She is thus significant not becuase of the fact that she won a mayoral primary, but becuase of the particular context and the historcial significance of her victory. DJLayton4 (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, as per everybody else. She's more notable than your typical primary winner both because her priamry victory has been almost universally recognized as tantamount to election (I believe there won't be any other names on the ballot in the general election), and because her political positions and unexpected defeat of a heavily favored and long-term incumbent are both noteworthy in and of themselves, as evidenced by national coverage of this local race. In general the Wikipedia notability guidelines say that winning a primary isn't enough to make someone notable; they do not say that only winning a general election makes someone notable. --Jfruh (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Does seem like WP:RECENTISM and WP:CRYSTALBALL a bit, but the proposed language at Wikipedia:Notability_(politics)#Local_politicians seems cogent; "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AfD". NickCT (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and snow close. She is getting coverage in national newspapers for her primary win. I just found this article in The Intercept published a few hours ago which says "Walton will all but definitely win Buffalo’s general mayoral election in November." Local news organizations have already projected that she will win the general election given that she is the only candidate, and have said so since the race was called last night. The idea that this is premature is based in fantasy and contrary to multiple independent reliable sources. I agree with others that NOTCRYSTAL means that we shouldn't delete articles on unopposed candidates on the assumption they'll unexpectedly die or lose to a write-in candidate that doesn't exist. Do we seriously want to repeat the Donna Strickland incident? Why are we so intent on trying to delete articles of women who are clearly notable? This is a waste of our time and I recommend early closure. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep National coverage! She won! Snow keep. — Mainly 19:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is currently on a headline of several news publications, and will probably continue to make them. Seems noteworthy enough to me. Larcondos (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, including because "The Democratic nominee is always the overwhelming favorite in a Buffalo mayoral election," (Politico) and :"Republicans have not fielded a candidate for mayor and have not won City Hall in Buffalo since the 1960s, making the Democratic primary winner all but certain to take office in January. If victorious when all ballots are counted, Walton will be Buffalo’s first female and first Black female mayor," (WaPo) and due to the significant coverage that is more than routine local election news, e.g. also NYT, CNN, CBS News, Rolling Stone, USAToday per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but amend. This article should be kept. She is the presumptive nominee to be a very heavy favorite for a major city. It is likely that people will hear that news and look her up. The goal of this site, in this context, should be to serve as a good resource for those people. In this way, the article is currently failing. The infobox makes it seem that she has already been elected. She has not. She is not mayor-elect until she wins the general. And she sure as heck isn't the incumbent. The incumbent is literally the current mayor. She is not currently the mayor. Keep in mind, it is not wikipedia's job to be PredictIt and state how likely we think events are to occur. It needs to report facts. The current fact is that she is the presumptive democratic nominee. I should note that the logic presented at the top of this argument would have precluded the current president-elect of Peru from having a page between the first and second round of that presidential election. I think we should acknowledge that logic is unsound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.119.16.61 (talk) 18:29, June 23, 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Regardless of whether it is finalized, she is headlining numerous sources and publications for the upset. Even if she is not notable for being presumptive mayor-elect (she is) she's still notable for having been declared as it and extensively covered for it. NekomancerJaidyn (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but amend If the person is basically guaranteed to become the mayor, than there should be an article about it. The "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" thing does not apply here, as the page is not making a prediction through the text presented. As a matter of fact, the existence of this article does not depend on whether she wins. She is already notable as it stands. WP:NPOL, as previously cited, does not disqualify her, as she is not notable for being in office. She is notable for the national attention. If a person is notable for a stupid reason, that doesn't make the person unnotable. Just because she is notable for the mere virtually certain prospect of becoming a socialist mayor doesn't mean you can deny their notability because you don't agree with the reasoning. She seems to meet all the requirements per WP:BIO.
However, it also seems to me that the wording currently being used is too current-y. "If elected, she will be the first socialist mayor of a large city in the United States since Frank Zeidler", for example, should be worded to not sound like a current events news source. I cannot think of a possible wording that could make this be objective. And if there isn't any, this kind of content should be deleted altogether until she actually wins. Additionally, I agree with the above "Keep but amend" opinion. To go further, it comes off as promotional, as she didn't actually win. I propose that the campaign website be taken down, and perhaps also the party affiliation. As per WP:NPOL, she has never held office, and so is not notable for being in office. Because of this, it seems implied that she should not be treated as notable for her political campaign. Therefore, the campaign website and party affiliation should not be listed in the infobox as if she were a person that has been in office.TheGEICOgecko (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2021 (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/India_Walton&oldid=1030115003"