The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seems like we have a clear consensus here that a) the topic currently doesn't meet WP:NPOL and b) that they will more likely than not meet NPOL in a few weeks anyhow. There are also claims of this meeting WP:BASIC but it doesn't seem like it is considered adequate, as well as somewhat thinly supported concerns about advertising. Thus this is a delete, although if/when she is elected people can just ask for restoration at WP:REFUND without having to go through deletion review or other complex procedures. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Lauren McLean (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Subject is a city council of Boise City and currently is running of mayor position. Fails WP:NPOL for a politician does not hold a national position and sources for their up coming campaign. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising campgain and if subject is elected in the future, then article can be recreated. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 05:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 05:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 05:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep per my earlier statement. According to WP:POLOUTCOMES, "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD" For reference, Boise, Idaho is the largest city in Idaho with a population of approximately 205,000. It is also the 97th largest city in an America out of 314 cities with a population over 100,000. Seeing as it is very likely that McLean will become mayor after the December 3rd runoff election, I see no point in deleting the page only to have to recreate it in a few weeks. KidAd ( talk) 06:06, 7 November 2019 editor is the creator of the page

• Comment: KidAd You are the creator of the page. Pls state you reason to vote keep based on Wikipedia notability guidelines.Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 06:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• My comment was in progress when you inserted my status as the creator of the page. KidAd ( talk) 06:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

From KidAd's talk page to me: It is very likely that this woman will be the next mayor of Boise, Idaho within the next few weeks. As the current mayor, David Bieter has a page, she ought to have one as well. If she is elected then that is a different story. As it is now she doesn't appear to meet WP:NPOL Gbawden ( talk) 06:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

*Comment - Creator's (KidAd) opinion on the subject likely to get elected is not the variable for notability acceptance and plays no role here. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 06:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete, without prejudice against recreation in December if she wins the runoff. Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates; she has to win the election and thereby hold the mayoralty to claim notability under our inclusion standards for mayors, and people's predictions about whether she's likely to win or not carry no weight. So as of today, the only standard we can judge her against is the one for city councillors — and the standard for city councillors is not being passed, because it requires evidence that she's uniquely much more notable than most other city councillors. Yes, Boise is a large enough city that its mayors would generally be accepted as passing WP:NPOL, so this can certainly be recreated if she actually wins the mayoral election — but as of today, she's still only a mayoral candidate who has not passed NPOL yet. And since administrators have the ability to restore deleted articles with one click of a button if circumstances change, the fact that the article might have to be recreated in a month is not a reason to exempt her from the normal process today. Bearcat ( talk) 14:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Meh - If, as seems very likely, this AFD gets re-listed twice to get a clear consensus (i.e., once on the 14th, and then once again on the 21st), we will practically be at the day of the run-off election (3rd of December) by the time the consensus has to be assessed (some time in the week after the 28th of November). McLean is an overwhelming favourite to win that election as she had a near-majority (45%) in the first round. There is Ooodles of coverage of her in state-level media so she's practically guaranteed to meet WP:BASIC, WP:NPOL at that point. It seems a no-brainer just to KEEP until election day. I normally agree with CASSIOPEIA but I think they're wrong to repeated invoke the fact that KidAd created the article as though this were a convincing argument for deletion - you can just as easily argue that the page-creator is often the person who is best placed to discuss the notability of the subject. Similarly Bearcat's idea that we delete today and then recreate on election day seem needlessly bureaucratic, especially when you consider that deletion would likely not take place today, but instead just days before the election after relisting of the AFD. FOARP ( talk) 14:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

There's no rule that relisting always has to happen; it's an option for cases where consensus is still uncertain after seven days, not a universal feature of deletion process that all discussions automatically go through as a matter of course. And even if there is a relisting, there can still be just one and not two — and if she doesn't win the election, then this will just have to be relisted for deletion again anyway. And furthermore, if we set a moratorium on listing unelected candidates' articles for deletion when the election is only X number of days away, then by definition we're setting a binding precedent that would permit every candidate in every election to just suddenly flood Wikipedia with their campaign brochures on Day X, right when they most want that last minute burst of extra campaign publicity in the hopes of pushing them over the top. So no matter how many days away the election happens to be, we still have to treat unelected candidate articles exactly the same as we would at any other time. I'll grant that the process gives us a bit of wiggle room in cases where the election is literally just a matter of hours away, but a blanket moratorium on listing candidate articles for deletion a month out from election day would be dangerous to Wikipedia's mission and mandate. Bearcat ( talk) 14:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

There's no rule that re-listing take place, but unless there's a very clear consensus - which as of now there isn't - it will be re-listed (observe all the re-listed articles on today's AFD page). WP:NODEADLINE is a important philosophical point, if only one expressed in an essay, which I think points towards just waiting for the result 26 days from now which is almost certainly going to see this lady elected as mayor of a major city. And this is before we even discuss whether this AFD might get sent to WP:DELREV. FOARP ( talk) 14:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

There's also no rule that the article would even have to go to DELREV at all. If an article gets deleted because the subject was only a candidate at the time of the discussion, but then wins the election in the end, there's no rule that DELREV has to weigh in before the article can be restored or recreated. Bearcat ( talk) 14:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I for one certainly would WP:DELREV this article if it were deleted based on the present state of consensus, even ignoring my vote. FOARP ( talk) 15:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment FOARP, Apologies if I was not clear on my previous message above. I was not saying the creator could not discuss the notability of the subject here, but I was respond to User Gbawden "From KidAd's talk page to me: It is very likely that this woman will be the next mayor of Boise". As we stand today, the subject does not pass WP:NPOL irregardless how we look at it. Without bias or setting a precedence that because opinion indicates the candidate is likely to be nominated then the page should be not be deleted in Wikipedia. If the article need to be recreated again after the election, then it is just a one click away. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 14:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

She could also pass based on WP:BASIC (see, e.g., 1 2 3 4) and the objections based on WP:POL are almost certainly going to fall away on the 3rd of December. What's the rush? PS - CASSIOPEIA I think you accidentally deleted a discussion between me and Bearcat due to an edit-conflict. (already fixed) FOARP ( talk) 14:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Every candidate in every election can always show a handful of local campaign coverage in the local media — so such coverage does not automatically translate into a BASIC pass that exempts them from having to pass NPOL, because every candidate in every election would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL if it did. So the notability of a candidate is not based on the principle of "does some media coverage of the campaign exist?", it's based on the principle of "does that media coverage demonstrate a reason why the candidacy is much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would satisfy the ten year test for enduring notability even if they lose?" And per WP:CRYSTAL, our notability standards for politicians are not based on anybody's predictions about whether the candidate is likely to win or not; they're based entirely on who did win after the ballots have been counted, not on advance punditry about who is or isn't "favoured" to win. Bearcat ( talk) 14:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

User:FOARP My apologies. I somehow accidentally removed your and User:Bearcat's edits when I made my edit just now. Thanks to Bearcat for restoring them. Same thought as per User:Bearcat regarding WP:BASIC does not apply here for campaign coverage in local media. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 15:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Bearcat/ CASSIOPEIA - WP:BASIC doesn't trump WP:NPOL? Maybe, but WP:NPOL is also not a trump-card to play against WP:BASIC. Indeed, there is, as far as I am aware, no consensus on what the interplay between the WP:BASIC and the more specific guidelines is. A WP:BASIC-pass can be enough to save notability even when guidelines like WP:NPOL aren't met. WP:CRYSTAL has been invoked, but this is a guide about article-content, and doesn't effect the freedom of editors to use common sense in assess notability to see if it is plausible that something/someone is likely to remain notable (see for example the tendency to "Keep for now" when assessing the notability of recent events that are likely to continue being covered in reliable sources). We've discuss the possible precedent effect of simply staying proceedings, but this is a pretty distinct case and easy to distinguish from others based on the facts (how many cities of this size have this kind of run-off election with this kind of likely result?).

But I don't want this to turn into an abstract discussion about guidelines - it's pure commonsense not to simply delete an article mere days before we can be fairly sure it will meet WP:NPOL anyway. Moreover, we know that McLean is already in the first run-off election ever held in Boise, a city - a state-capital indeed - with a population (~230,000 city-centre, ~350,000 urban, ~700,000 metro) the equal of some small countries, which appears to indicate at least some level of notability already. FOARP ( talk) 08:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Just as before November 4, 2008, Barack Obama was not the 44th President of United States irregardless how many supporters of his chanting "Yes we can" or how many positive "opinion poll" results conducted and we could not make an entry in Obama page in Wikipedia to indicate he surely would have won the Presidency race because logic and common sense predicated that is WP:CYRSTAL. Here is the same, as election has yet to be held that means no elected politicians could be announced, that means it is WP:CYRSTAL and subject fails WP:NPOL as per common sense and Wikipedia guidelines . CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 09:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

No-one is proposing to list McLean as mayor in the article - merely stating that she is very likely to be mayor within days and that her notability should be viewed in this light for the purposes of this AFD. Obama was already clearly notable at the date you are discussing. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Deleting this article will in all likelihood simply result in it being mechanically re-created on the 3rd of December - what's the point? FOARP ( talk) 10:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

The point is that if we decree that there's now a moratorium on deleting candidate articles 30 days or less before election day just because there's a chance that the person might win, then every candidate in every election automatically has free rein to bum rush Wikipedia with their campaign brochures in the final month. And by exactly the same token, if we decide that purely routine coverage of the election campaign in the local media is enough to hand a not yet elected candidate a free pass over GNG that exempts them from actually having to pass NPOL, then every candidate in every election automatically gets that pass and nobody ever has to pass NPOL anymore.

Simply put, GNG is not just "two or more pieces of media coverage exist, and nothing else matters after that" — it also tests for factors like the depth of how substantively any given source is or isn't about the topic, the geographic range of where the coverage is coming from, and the context of what they're getting covered for. Some kinds of coverage simply do not count for as much toward the notability equation as others do — and routine local coverage of an election campaign in which the subject is still only a candidate, and has not already won as of today, is the weak kind of coverage and not the strong kind. That is, if and when she does win, then the campaign coverage can be used to pad out the article with additional content and sourcing — but as long as she's still only a candidate, the existence of campaign coverage does not get her over the bar in and of itself, precisely because every candidate for mayor in every city can always show the existence of some campaign coverage.

We have an established consensus that it is not our mandate or goal to be an indiscriminate repository of campaign brochures for political candidates, so the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable political office and not just running for one — and precisely because some local campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election, that fact is not automatically enough to deem a person as passing GNG and therefore exempted from having to pass NPOL. And by the same token, musicians are not automatically notable just because you can find one or two articles in their hometown media about their winning of a local battle of the bands competition — our criteria for musical notability require nationalizing signifiers of importance, such as having a national charting hit or winning a Grammy. And writers are not automatically notable just because you can find one or two articles in their hometown media about the fact that they won a local poetry contest — our criteria for writer notability require nationalized notability markers, such as having a national bestseller or winning a Pulitzer. High school athletes aren't exempted from having to pass our notability standards for sportspeople just because they got a couple of human interest pieces in their local media about the fact that they only have three toes on their kicking foot. And on and so forth. Politicians aren't being treated differently from other occupations here — we have a long established consensus that the existence of a small handful of local coverage in a person's local media is not in and of itself an automatic GNG-based exemption from actually having to pass our quantified notability criteria for their occupation, and that applies to virtually every occupation and not just to politicians alone.

And, again, if she does win the election, then an administrator can restore the article in two seconds flat, with one easy click on one button. So the fact that she might win the election is not a reason to ignore the rules, thus setting a precedent that would inherently disembowel NPOL entirely. Bearcat ( talk) 16:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 21:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete The coverage is not significant enough to rise abouve routine for mayoral candidates and city council members. Even if elected mayor of Boise she would not be default notable, she is not even close right now. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete for now (while allowing the article to be recreated in draft space). As others have stated, candidates are not presumed notable under WP:NPOL. While there is a timing issue surrounding an AfD of a political candidate close to an election, the usual standard of a delayed AfD is about 8-10 days from an election (to account for one relist). As Bearcat points out above, there is a concern that Wikipedia could become a repository of campaign brochures in the waning days of an election (and I can attest, they do and they are hard to patrol [especially when they come to AfD]). In the interim, there is a possibility of a redirect to the 2019 Boise mayoral election. -- Enos733 ( talk) 05:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC) reply

And just to clarify further, even at the "8-10 days" mark there still isn't actually a moratorium on initiating the AFD on a person who's still only an unelected candidate as of the moment you find the article — we just have a bit of wiggle room at the back end about taking a couple of extra days to close the discussion. Bearcat ( talk) 15:21, 11 November 2019 (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.