- 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 no consensus. While even the nominator mentions the subject passing GNG, there is no consensus whether this is actually the case here. Despite relisting, no further extensive discussion has happened on this question. That said, since much of the coverage was regarding the mayoral election and a minor scandal, consensus might change in a few months if it becomes clear that further coverage will not happen. So Why 12:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Shneur Odze ( | 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 candidate is not considered wikipedia notable until they win office. He passes WP:GNG as there are press reports about him but he has no other qualification to have a life story here. The whole page is mostly scandal, unless he wins office I respectfully suggest we get rid of this till then. Govindaharihari ( talk) 17:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Govindaharihari ( talk) 17:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The article is not primarily about him as a candidate. It is about him as a politician. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see him as- or how he can be- a politician until he is elected to something. At the moment he is a rabbi with an unfortunate? habit of putting his foot in it. Suggest this is stubbed of the attacks and negativity. Of course that would then leave about three lines. Having said that, passing WP:NPOL requires being a Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage; the question is the definition of 'major'; but there's certainly coverage. Equally, as Govindaharihari points out, being an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". So, not so much NPOL, but WP:ANYBIO is the vital policy at the end, as those its similar criteria. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with above. Without winning any elected position I'm inclined to suggest deletion | MK17b | ( talk) 20:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Odze is a formerly elected Conservative councilor for Hackney. This is referenced. Roflcoptercrash ( talk) 20:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
"Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." are notable. He has had lots of coverage. Mostly for the wrong reasons. But he is notable. The policy is not that only those who are elected are notable - otherwise UKIP would have none. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I find the fact that his latest scandal (his most significant which includes coverage by major press) has been deleted. Sounds like more of a cover-up than merely adhering to Wiki's rules of notability
Roflcoptercrash (
talk) 20:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well; thanks very much for the assumption of good faith, there, Roflcoptercrash. Anything else you'ld like to accuse your fellow editors of...? — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 20:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
With respect, it has been mentioned that this individual is subject to current scandal, however these are well referenced occurrences and I question the motivation of these being removed when they cover the most notable event. Roflcoptercrash ( talk) 20:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The references are from multiple independent reliable sources and have in depth coverage. It meets WP:GNG. -- Rogerx2 ( talk) 21:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Firstly, despite what Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi says, WP:NPOL does apply. Criteria 3. explicitly mentions "unelected candidate for political office". This is our current consensus. Secondly, while tabloid sleaze should be kept out, well-sourced but negative information, such as his refusal to shake hands with female candidates and voters or his decision to burn religious books is perfectly appropriate. AusLondonder ( talk) 00:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- @
AusLondoner: if you could just clarify your remarks to indicate that at no point did I say it didn't apply; merely that it was not necessarily so. Cheers, —
O Fortuna
semper crescis, aut decrescis 00:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- To clarify you stated that your personal opinion was that "I don't see him as- or how he can be- a politician until he is elected to something".
AusLondonder (
talk) 00:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Ah. That would be that word 'personal' again. My personal opinion. A personal opinion of mine. Etc. Whereas the rest of my comment makes it clear that both pages are relevant. Cheers — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Odze appears to have just as good a claim to be a UKIP politician as most of those in Category:UK Independence Party politicians. The policy is not to exclude all candidates from notability just because they are candidates. Rathfelder ( talk) 07:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- To clarify you stated that your personal opinion was that "I don't see him as- or how he can be- a politician until he is elected to something".
AusLondonder (
talk) 00:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- @
AusLondoner: if you could just clarify your remarks to indicate that at no point did I say it didn't apply; merely that it was not necessarily so. Cheers, —
O Fortuna
semper crescis, aut decrescis 00:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC.-- TM 02:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. It's all primary sources. Don't force this fringe interpretation of news-reports-are-secondary-sources on everyone until you can convince the professional historians that they've been wrong. Nyttend ( talk) 12:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is one primary source - details of his election result in Hackney. We regularly accept such sources for Category:Council elections in England. All the others are secondary sources. But the quality of the sources is not relevant to the issue of notability. Notability is a quality of the subject, not the article.
Rathfelder ( talk) 19:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Well, he certainly fails WP:NPOL on the political side. On the other hand, we have; otherwise non-notable politician does a heap of stupid things -> newspapers like printing stories about politicians doing stupid things -> doing some stupid things generates some news sources. I'm not sure if a claim to notability based on idiocy is a good one, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Strong keep as the subject has been covered directly and in detail by multiple media sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and therefore meets the GNG. If the article itself has problems then these can be addressed as per WP:RUBBISH or WP:EASYTARGET. Amisom ( talk) 13:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment If the nominator says this passes
WP:GNG it should never have been nominated.
Gab4gab (
talk) 13:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- There are weblinks mostly reporting his controversies but this is (supposed to be) a life story of a notable person, and is isn't there, he has a councillors position for a small time, this is not a notable position in itself. Today he recieved less than two percent of the vote for mayor.
/info/en/?search=Greater_Manchester_mayoral_election,_2017#Results - all that leaves is the minor controversies of a person that attempted a political life that did not mature, leaving what is basically an attacking report of a minor person holding no political position and no other noteworty biopgraphical position, that is why I nominated it.
Govindaharihari (
talk) 17:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- The GNG is not a god, you have to look at all of wikipedia policies and carefully consider content about living people. As you can see, a couple of very experianced editors have responded in agreement with my interpretation. User:Nyttend is an administrator and has been an editor since more than ten years with over a quarter of a million edits. User:Black Kite is a respected long term admin with a lot of experiance as well. Govindaharihari ( talk) 17:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, GNG is not a god & you have to consider other policies and such. However, if a subject passes GNG there's no point in searching out some other notability guidelines it might fail. (A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline , or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guidelines; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.) Notability is a requirement for the subject of the article, not the article content per WP:NNC. So it's fine to mention that this subject held a councillors position and other details about his life. This doesn't seem to qualify as an attack page eligible for speedy delete so as Amisom suggests there are ways to fix content problems without deletion. Of course we're all entitled to our opinions whether they agree with other famous, powerful and/or highly respected editors or not. Gab4gab ( talk) 15:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ Govindaharihari: Can I quote from WP:N for a moment? A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline. That's what our notability guideline says. So while I understand that you don't like this article, I feel you need to provide some stronger reasoning for why this should be one of those exceptional cases in which we override the GNG. Amisom ( talk) 15:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- There are weblinks mostly reporting his controversies but this is (supposed to be) a life story of a notable person, and is isn't there, he has a councillors position for a small time, this is not a notable position in itself. Today he recieved less than two percent of the vote for mayor.
/info/en/?search=Greater_Manchester_mayoral_election,_2017#Results - all that leaves is the minor controversies of a person that attempted a political life that did not mature, leaving what is basically an attacking report of a minor person holding no political position and no other noteworty biopgraphical position, that is why I nominated it.
Govindaharihari (
talk) 17:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Just to note also, apart from the weblink scandals he has no other notablility, being a Conservative councillor for two years is not a qualification for notability here. Govindaharihari ( talk) 18:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep As I argue in
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Plummer, I feel like being an elected council-member in England should be considered notability, or at least the situation is ambiguous enough to keep articles on candidates in this year's general election.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 02:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- This person - Shneur Odze is not a candidate in this year's general election. Candidates are just not notable, never have been here. Govindaharihari ( talk) 11:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot show and
properly source that he was already eligible for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not merely run in it, to get a Wikipedia article because election per se. Serving on a borough council, however, is not grounds for notability in and of itself — a person would have to serve on the citywide
London Assembly, not just the borough council of Hackney, to get a Wikipedia article just for serving in a local political office.
And the sourcing here is not adequate to claim that he passes WP:GNG, either — there are too many primary sources, routine election results tables, and glancing namechecks of his existence in news articles about other things, and the number of sources which are genuinely both reliable and substantively about him is simply not high enough to pass GNG — every candidate in any election could always show the number of sources shown here, so those sources are not showing him to be more notable than the norm. Christine O'Donnell, who got flayed alive by an international media firestorm, is the textbook case for how much coverage of a person's candidacy it takes to clear GNG because campaign coverage in and of itself, and this doesn't even approach a fraction of enough. Bearcat ( talk) 15:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)- @
Bearcat: Did you look at the sources I pasted above? A lot of them were direct profiles of this particular person and his own personal journey.
Amisom (
talk) 15:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Direct profiles of this particular person and his own personal journey", which are (a) being written specifically in the context of his candidacy for an office he didn't win, and (b) no different from what any candidate for any office in any election whatsoever could always show that they'd received. So no, they're not providing any special notability boost, because they don't constitute strong evidence that his non-winning candidacy was more notable than all of the other non-winning candidates' candidacies were.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- But you're making up a rule that doesn't exist. The GNG requires
significant coverage, not 'significant coverage unrelated to the main thing the subject is notable for', or 'more coverage than other people in the field'...
Amisom (
talk) 15:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- No, I'm not making up a rule that doesn't exist. Every candidate for any political office would always clear GNG if a few pieces of campaign-related coverage was all you had to show to get them there — such coverage, accordingly, falls under
WP:ROUTINE, and does not show notability in and of itself unless it explodes to a volume far out of proportion to what could merely be expected to exist. GNG is a general principle, not an objective test — it leaves a lot of room for debate about how much coverage is enough to clear it, because it doesn't quantify any clear benchmarks. So you can't just say that an article has to be kept just because the letter of GNG is technically met — as I've said many times, if all we had to do to get a person over GNG was show that two or three pieces of media coverage exist, and we didn't care about the context in which it was given, then we would have to keep an article about the woman a mile down the road from my parents who got into the papers a few years ago for finding a pig in her front yard.
So AFD has established consensuses about what types of coverage do or don't count toward meeting it, and how much of the correct type of coverage has to be shown in any given situation. And the established consensus around people who have run for but never won an NPOL-passing office is that either (a) they must be shown to have already been notable enough for an article before running as a candidate, or (b) the candidacy coverage has to get close to the sheer volume and nationalized or internationalized range that Christine O'Donnell got. Not because I said so, but because a broad consensus of Wikipedia editors decided that in many past AFD discussions about whether or not non-winning candidates for political office cleared GNG on the basis of campaign-related coverage itself. Bearcat ( talk) 15:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- No, I'm not making up a rule that doesn't exist. Every candidate for any political office would always clear GNG if a few pieces of campaign-related coverage was all you had to show to get them there — such coverage, accordingly, falls under
WP:ROUTINE, and does not show notability in and of itself unless it explodes to a volume far out of proportion to what could merely be expected to exist. GNG is a general principle, not an objective test — it leaves a lot of room for debate about how much coverage is enough to clear it, because it doesn't quantify any clear benchmarks. So you can't just say that an article has to be kept just because the letter of GNG is technically met — as I've said many times, if all we had to do to get a person over GNG was show that two or three pieces of media coverage exist, and we didn't care about the context in which it was given, then we would have to keep an article about the woman a mile down the road from my parents who got into the papers a few years ago for finding a pig in her front yard.
- But you're making up a rule that doesn't exist. The GNG requires
significant coverage, not 'significant coverage unrelated to the main thing the subject is notable for', or 'more coverage than other people in the field'...
Amisom (
talk) 15:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Direct profiles of this particular person and his own personal journey", which are (a) being written specifically in the context of his candidacy for an office he didn't win, and (b) no different from what any candidate for any office in any election whatsoever could always show that they'd received. So no, they're not providing any special notability boost, because they don't constitute strong evidence that his non-winning candidacy was more notable than all of the other non-winning candidates' candidacies were.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- @
Bearcat: Did you look at the sources I pasted above? A lot of them were direct profiles of this particular person and his own personal journey.
Amisom (
talk) 15:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- He is notable because he is an orthodox Jew who is a very active member of UKIP. That gives rise to a lot of interesting contradictions, which are explored in the articles about him. Most of the coverage is in Jewish publications. When he was a Conservative councillor he was not interesting and nobody wrote about him. He is not excluded from notability because he has been a candidate.
Rathfelder (
talk) 16:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Disclaimer, User:Rathfelder created this biography (sadly) less than two weeks ago - 22:12, 30 April 2017 Rathfelder (talk | contribs) . . (5,215 bytes) (+5,215) . . (←Created page with 'Shneur Odze, born March 3, 1981, is a UK Independence Party politician and a member of Chabad-Lubavitch. He is a rabbi in Broughton, Salford.<ref>{{...') (thank) - Govindaharihari ( talk) 17:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- A person who doesn't clear any normal notability standard does not get a special inclusion freebie just because his political affiliations happen to run counter to conventional expectations of their personal identity politics — unelected gay Republicans or Jewish ukippers with no other strong claim of notability do not get Wikipedia articles just because the phrases "gay Republican" or "Jewish ukipper" might seem like oxymorons to some people. Bearcat ( talk) 18:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- The article creator claim that "He is notable because he is an orthodox Jew who is a very active member of UKIP" just about says it all, that is not a reason under
wp:policies and guidelines to have wikipedia host what is basically an attack page about a living person and supports delete. The elections over, he got less than 2 percent of the vote, he holds no political office, he has no actual notability, lets just get rid of this sorry life story of a "what is he actually" (a failed candidate) person.
Govindaharihari (
talk) 18:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, the article creator's claim that being an Orthodox Jew in UKIP makes Mr Odze notable is not a reason under WP:PAG. But, @ Govindaharihari:, the fact that he got <2% of the vote is also not a reason under WP:PAG (or, if I'm mistaken about that, please quote the policy in question). Amisom ( talk) 18:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- He is clearly a person of great interest to the Jewish community in the UK - multiple independent reliable sources - even before the stuff published by the Daily Mail.
Rathfelder (
talk) 19:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Lets just move on, the elections over, he got less than 2 percent of the vote - Sadly , (well not sadly really) he is a flash in the pan person with stupid weblinks without any continuing note.
Govindaharihari (
talk) 19:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- He holds no positiohn that fulfills wikipedias notability guidelines, the election is over, he got less that two percent of the vote - lets move on, there is now no reason at all to have a biography hosted about him here Govindaharihari ( talk) 20:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Lets just move on, the elections over, he got less than 2 percent of the vote - Sadly , (well not sadly really) he is a flash in the pan person with stupid weblinks without any continuing note.
Govindaharihari (
talk) 19:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- A candidate for office does not clear GNG on campaign-related coverage itself, unless and until that campaign coverage explodes far out of proportion to what is
routinely expected to always exist for all candidates. The number of sources shown here simply doesn't pass that test.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- OK, but (a) the nominator disagrees with you and accepts that the article meets the GNG; and (2)
WP:ROUTINE is nothing to do with the GNG, it is part of
WP:N(E) which is one of the subject-specific guidelines that are alternatives to the GNG.
Amisom (
talk) 21:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- ROUTINE covers off whether certain classes of sourcing, in certain contexts, count toward meeting GNG or not. It's not a question of one having nothing to do with the other, and SNGs are not alternatives to GNG — they always both have to be met in tandem, by virtue of GNG-worthy sourcing existing in a context that simultaneously satisfies an SNG. (And yes, a topic can also technically pass an SNG, and still get deleted if the reliable source coverage just isn't there to properly verify their passage of the SNG.) So it's not one or the other, except occasionally in highly specialized cases where the volume of coverage is just so whompingly massive that there's just no serious case to be made that a person doesn't qualify as special (which this situation doesn't really meet). Tt's both together, not GNG or an SNG — SNGs exist to clarify what counts as a claim of notability, while GNG exists to clarify what an article has to do to ensure that the SNG is properly satisfied.
- As I've already said: if this volume of directly campaign-related coverage were enough in and of itself to get an unelected candidate for office over GNG just because coverage exists, then we would always have to keep an article about every single person who ever ran for any office in any election whatsoever. The only way a candidate can ever clear GNG on campaign coverage alone is if that coverage explodes to a volume that marks him as significantly more notable than the norm. The volume of coverage shown here is merely the normal volume of coverage that every candidate for any office always gets — but we do not accept every candidate as notable on this volume of coverage. We accept candidates as notable because candidacy only if the sourcing shows them to be significantly more notable than the norm for unelected candidates. But that condition is not being met by this sourcing.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- <SNGs are not alternatives to GNG — they always both have to be met in tandem, by virtue of GNG-worthy sourcing existing in a context that simultaneously satisfies an SNG. OK, but that's precisely the opposite of what
WP:N says: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline (my emphasis). Your reference to
WP:ROUTINE shows that the article doesn't meet the SNG for events (and it would be rather odd if it did since the subject is not an event). The article also doesn't meet the SNG for politicians. Nobody has made any policy-based argument to say that the article doesn't meet the GNG - and indeed the nominator agrees that it does.
Amisom (
talk) 06:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- ROUTINE is a question of the context in which the coverage is being given, not a question of what class of topic the subject happens to be. An election is an event, so coverage of a person in the context of an election most certainly falls squarely under
WP:ROUTINE.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- No.
WP:EVENT (and all the content on that page, including the section entitled "Routine coverage") is about whether or not events are notable for their own article. This article,
Shneur Odze, si about a person, not an event. So
WP:EVENT is not at all germane, so
WP:ROUTINE is not at all germane. If
WP:ROUTINE was part of the
WP:GNG, it would be included in that guideline. It isn't, so it's not. Stop this.
Amisom (
talk) 11:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- No,
WP:ROUTINE most definitely is about the context in which the coverage is being given, regardless of whether the subject is a person, a place, a thing, an event or an animal. Note, for example, that ROUTINE does list things such as 'wedding announcements", "crime logs" and "local person wins award" — types of coverage where the context is a routine event but the subject of the "coverage" is a person — as examples of routine coverage that doesn't aid notability at all.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Then why does
WP:ROUTINE appear as a subsection of
WP:EVENT, a subject-specific guideline which is an alternative to the
GNG?
Amisom (
talk) 20:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- Because the context in which the person is receiving the routine coverage is an event: a wedding, a minor local award presentation, an election, the commission of a non-notable crime, and on and so forth. And again, SNGs are not an alternative to passing GNG — for one thing, we quite regularly see the creation of articles where the claim of notability is hype-inflated well past the truth (e.g. musicians always ascribe "hit" status to their current single in their public relations materials regardless of whether or not it was ever actually a hit on any chart we accept as a notability claim in a musician's article), or outright hoax articles about topics that actually don't exist at all. So it's not the claim to passing an SNG that gets an article kept, but the degree to which we can or can't verify, in reliable sources that meet GNG, that passage of the SNG is true — the SNG clarifies what the article has to say to have a valid and keepable claim of notability, while the GNG clarifies what the article has to do to ensure that the claim of notability is properly supported.
- And conversely, if a person has no claim to passing any SNG, and instead you're shooting for "notable because media coverage exists", then there has to be a lot more media coverage than this: Christine O'Donnell, an example that's been pointed out several times above, contains 166 citations, covering her in such depth that her article is actually longer than that of the guy who actually passed NPOL by winning the election against her. That is an article that passes GNG because media coverage despite lacking any actual claim to passing any SNG — because the media coverage exploded far out of proportion to what could be regularly and routinely expected to exist for an election candidate.
- As I've already pointed out and you've failed to acknowledge or address at all, when the subject is a non-winning election candidate you can't just go "media coverage exists, ergo GNG met", because every candidate in any election always gets as much media coverage as has been shown here. To get over GNG on campaign coverage alone, the coverage has to mark the candidate out as significantly more notable than the thousands of other people who also got the same amount of coverage for being candidates — to count as a GNG pass in and of itself, campaign-specific coverage has to show a credible argument why he could be considered a special case who's more notable than the norm for an unelected candidate.
Bearcat (
talk) 12:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- SNGs are not an alternative to passing GNG. Well, WP:N explicitly says that they are, and I'm afraid I trust that page more than I trust you.
- To get over GNG on campaign coverage alone, the coverage has to mark the candidate out as significantly more notable than the thousands of other people who also got the same amount of coverage. That isn't what WP:GNG says. It says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list," and goes on to define 'significant coverage' as follow: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
- So both of those points, on which your argument rely, are based on wrong interpretation of the guideline. If you want to amend the guideline to say what you want it to say, you can start a proposal to that affect. But in the meantime, I am going to engage with this afD based on what the actual guideline says not based on what you wish it say.
Amisom (
talk) 12:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm completely correct on both counts. As I've already pointed out above and you've failed to acknowledge or address, Wikipedia policy statements are deliberately written generically as general principles, and avoid explicitly quantifying the volumes required: for the latter point, you have to familiarize yourself with established AFD consensus around how GNG is deemed to apply in practice. You can't just assert that the letter of GNG is met, because that could always be asserted for anybody who ever got their name into the newspaper for any reason whatsoever.
- If GNG were automatically passed the moment a small handful of media coverage existed at all, regardless of whether the person actually had a notability claim that would pass any SNG or not, then the list of topics we would have to start keeping articles about the moment two or three pieces of media coverage existed would include: every non-winning candidate for any democratically elected office; presidents of church bake sale committees; elementary school parent teacher associations; teenagers who tried out for their high school football team despite being amputees; and the woman a mile down the road from my parents who woke up one morning and found a pig in her yard. Media coverage exists for a lot of things that we don't accept as notable just because that coverage exists — so AFD's consensus is that if a person has no claim of notability that would satisfy an SNG, then a "notable per GNG anyway because media coverage exists" does require a lot more media coverage than has been shown here.
- I've already pointed out above: this has zilch to do with my opinions, and even less to do with what I wish Wikipedia's standards were: AFD has well-established consensuses around how GNG applies in cases of debate, and I'm simply and correctly explaining what the established consensus is when the subject is an unelected candidate for political office: a GNG claim requires the coverage to mark the candidate out as more notable than the norm, because every candidate for any office could always cite as many sources as this article does. The path to getting a non-winning candidate over GNG on campaign coverage alone is that significantly more campaign coverage exists than would be routinely expected to exist. And that's not me expressing a personal opinion, either: that's thousands of prior AFDs establishing that as the accepted consensus.
Bearcat (
talk) 12:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Can you link to a sample of the "thousands" of prior AfDs so I can learn more then please.
Amisom (
talk) 12:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians/archive. HTH.
Bearcat (
talk) 13:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Having read the AfD discussion regarding the 1st seven people on that archive, it looks like all of the 'delete" arguments were on the grounds of
WP:GNG not being met, and the only person to argue that unseccessful election candidates had some sort of higher threshold for
WP:SIGCOV was you, Bearcat. If you maintain that your interpretation of the consensus across "thousands" of AfDs is correct, please link to a couple where there was a clear consensus of people other than yourself takng this view. If not we're finished here.
Amisom (
talk) 13:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Wrong. Not a single one of those discussions was one in which the failure to meet GNG resulted from media coverage failing to exist at all — although some of the articles were created by people who didn't put as much effort into them as other people do, all of those candidates actually did have, and could have cited, as much media coverage as this article shows. No candidate for any office in any election ever fails to be the subject of at least as much media coverage as this article shows — so if you could GNG a person on campaign coverage alone, then every candidate for any office in any election would always get an article. So the contradiction you perceive between my comments and other people's comments simply does not exist — not everybody used the same words, but all of the votes were based on the same principle: the failure to meet GNG was not because coverage of the candidates failed to exist, but because campaign coverage simply doesn't count toward GNGing an unelected candidate with no other claim of preexisting notability, except in very rarefied special cases on the order of Christine O'Donnell. And for the record, I get to decide when I'm done with this discussion, not you. Bearcat ( talk) 13:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Having read the AfD discussion regarding the 1st seven people on that archive, it looks like all of the 'delete" arguments were on the grounds of
WP:GNG not being met, and the only person to argue that unseccessful election candidates had some sort of higher threshold for
WP:SIGCOV was you, Bearcat. If you maintain that your interpretation of the consensus across "thousands" of AfDs is correct, please link to a couple where there was a clear consensus of people other than yourself takng this view. If not we're finished here.
Amisom (
talk) 13:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians/archive. HTH.
Bearcat (
talk) 13:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Can you link to a sample of the "thousands" of prior AfDs so I can learn more then please.
Amisom (
talk) 12:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- Then why does
WP:ROUTINE appear as a subsection of
WP:EVENT, a subject-specific guideline which is an alternative to the
GNG?
Amisom (
talk) 20:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- No,
WP:ROUTINE most definitely is about the context in which the coverage is being given, regardless of whether the subject is a person, a place, a thing, an event or an animal. Note, for example, that ROUTINE does list things such as 'wedding announcements", "crime logs" and "local person wins award" — types of coverage where the context is a routine event but the subject of the "coverage" is a person — as examples of routine coverage that doesn't aid notability at all.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- No.
WP:EVENT (and all the content on that page, including the section entitled "Routine coverage") is about whether or not events are notable for their own article. This article,
Shneur Odze, si about a person, not an event. So
WP:EVENT is not at all germane, so
WP:ROUTINE is not at all germane. If
WP:ROUTINE was part of the
WP:GNG, it would be included in that guideline. It isn't, so it's not. Stop this.
Amisom (
talk) 11:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- ROUTINE is a question of the context in which the coverage is being given, not a question of what class of topic the subject happens to be. An election is an event, so coverage of a person in the context of an election most certainly falls squarely under
WP:ROUTINE.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- <SNGs are not alternatives to GNG — they always both have to be met in tandem, by virtue of GNG-worthy sourcing existing in a context that simultaneously satisfies an SNG. OK, but that's precisely the opposite of what
WP:N says: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline (my emphasis). Your reference to
WP:ROUTINE shows that the article doesn't meet the SNG for events (and it would be rather odd if it did since the subject is not an event). The article also doesn't meet the SNG for politicians. Nobody has made any policy-based argument to say that the article doesn't meet the GNG - and indeed the nominator agrees that it does.
Amisom (
talk) 06:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- OK, but (a) the nominator disagrees with you and accepts that the article meets the GNG; and (2)
WP:ROUTINE is nothing to do with the GNG, it is part of
WP:N(E) which is one of the subject-specific guidelines that are alternatives to the GNG.
Amisom (
talk) 21:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- A candidate for office does not clear GNG on campaign-related coverage itself, unless and until that campaign coverage explodes far out of proportion to what is
routinely expected to always exist for all candidates. The number of sources shown here simply doesn't pass that test.
Bearcat (
talk) 19:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- The concern is about a living person WP:BLP that although he has some weblinks talking about scandals about him, (qualifying him vaguely under WP:GNG - nine weblinks currently in the article are from his very recent attempt to win a wikipedia notable political position, but he didn't, failing so miserably, gaining less than 2 percent of the vote and he clears no other hurdle of wikipedia guidelines, he is not a notable politician, he holds no notable office and never has. After his recent failure to gain a notable office he is in regards to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines a nobody with attached scandals. WP:BLP suggests he should not have a biography, as I said at the start WP:GNG is not a god and needs to be considered in reflection with other guidelines and policy especially when we write about living people. It is also clear that he has no chance of winning any other wikipedia notable political office and there will be no continued coverage of him. 17:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Govindaharihari ( talk)
- Delete -- an unsuccessful candidacy & an a minor controversy do not encyclopedia notability make. There's nothing else there. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. I concur with K.e.coffman - fails NBIO. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 07:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- But @
Piotrus:, he doesn't have to meet
WP:NBIO. The
notability policy says quite clearly that meeting the
GNG is sufficient.
Amisom (
talk) 07:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but I don't think he passes GNG. Being mentioned by media is not enough, the coverage has to be extensive. And what I see are few very small mentions of unsuccessful candidacy plus a minor scandal. Even adding them together I don't think that's enough. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- But @
Piotrus:, he doesn't have to meet
WP:NBIO. The
notability policy says quite clearly that meeting the
GNG is sufficient.
Amisom (
talk) 07:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - According to WP:GNG: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
- Many of the sources used as references in the article do meet that requirement as they are clearly more than trivial mentions like http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/who-are-manchester-mayor-candidates-12935286 and http://www.citymetric.com/politics/shneur-odze-orthodox-jewish-candidate-who-wants-be-ukips-first-manchester-mayor-2810 for example. A verifiable article could be written with the content from the reliable sources, so I agree with Amisom. It meets GNG. -- Rogerx2 ( talk) 17:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- 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.