Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette (3rd nomination)

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. Consensus reached that the article meets WP:GNG. ––FormalDude talk 23:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Kathy Barnette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

She lost, so this (to my mind) fails wp:notnews. Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There's a lot of WP:SIGCOV of Barnette; the problem is all of these are in reference to the election and may just qualify as WP:ROUTINE election coverage. The New York Times and The Independent "profiles" of her are not profiles in the sense of being a biography, but just a list of political beliefs and statements with some limited biographical information tossed-in. Curbon7 (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The rise and fall of Barnette during this election can and should of course be covered in the prose at 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania; however, I don't see how she is standalone notable. Curbon7 (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What about this 2020 profile of Barnette in Politico? : [1] Thriley (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Unsure, it's about her, but also about a wider issue. Thus it might be argued she is not notable, the issue that she represents (republican attitudes towards one of Colour) might be. So I am still unsure she is in fact notable. Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it does use her story to illustrate a wider problem, but it is still significant coverage from one of the most reputable news organizations covering American politics. This is coverage in 2020, well before her senate campaign. Thriley (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:LOSER is not policy and her notability was not contingent on her winning office. She easily surpasses the GNG with national profile articles on her since 2020 [2][3][4] along with extensive coverage spanning two congressional elections. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The fact that she's been on TV, has had political ads put out for and against her in a US Senate race, and has run for Congress (House of Representatives) shows noteworthiness.Joesom333 (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Morbidthoughts and WP:NPOL#2, she is amajor local political [figure] who [has] received significant press coverage, e.g. national coverage includes: WSJ, NYT, CBS, NBC, NBC, Bloomberg. Beccaynr (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Curbon7 and WP:PAGEDECIDE. These articles contribute to the notability of the election article, and do not indicate her personal notability apart from the election. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In-depth coverage from 2020, 2021 and 2022. Meets WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Barnette does meet general notability, considering the coverage she received, but she is also very close to just being notable for WP:ONEEVENT. I think there is just enough coverage pre May 2022 and pre Senate campaign that her page cannot be merged into 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, so therefore, her page gets a weak keep from me.--Physeters^✉ 20:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: She is notable regardless of whether she won this election or not. Piratetales (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes WP:NPOL. StonyBrook _babble 22:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not pass WP:NPOL. The coverage for her is solely related to her failed campaigns. There is no coverage of her outside her two failed campaigns, and losing candidates do not get notability unless somehow their candidacy had an impact on the course of the election. This does not appear to be the case. Banana Republic (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Keep - Good references ([5] and [6]) have been put forward to demonstrate notability. --Banana Republic (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not at all sure that "losing candidates do not get notability" is valid reasoning, and my personal OR is that she clearly had an impact on the course of the primary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Since WP:NPOL applies to officeholders, it does not apply to losing candidates. --Banana Republic (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It also applies to major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. But my keep was arguing WP:GNG anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion, if the coverage is limited to the election, then it's not enduring and therefore WP:GNG is not met. --Banana Republic (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  [7] is not about the election. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And e.g. the WSJ: Kathy Barnette Scrambles Pennsylvania GOP Senate Primary, Drawing Trump Ire, Washington Post: Trump, GOP rivals target Barnette as she threatens to upend Pa. race, Axios: GOP panics over ‘ultra-MAGA’ Pennsylvania Senate wild card, CNN: How Trump's endorsement of Oz gave Kathy Barnette an unexpected opening in Pennsylvania, New York: Can Wild-Card Kathy Barnette Win Pennsylvania’s GOP Senate Primary?, NYT: Trump criticizes Kathy Barnette as she surges in Pennsylvania’s G.O.P. Senate primary. Beccaynr (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All those references are directly related to her campaigns. She is not notable outside of her losing campaigns. --Banana Republic (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NPOL includesMajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage and fn 8 states,A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. The references cited in this discussion include independent and in-depth coverage in multiple news feature articles, so there appears to be sufficient support for notability as a major local political figure. Beccaynr (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets GNG. There seems to be some misunderstanding of routine election coverage not counting as SIGCOV. Routine would be "The latest polls in the Senate race show Barnette behind by X points, but Barnett is confident she will win. Anyway, the other candidates blah blah blah." A feature in the NYT is not routine. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG. I agree with Indy beetle that the subject has received significant coverage that far exceeds routine campaign coverage, enough to pass the notability threshold. Sal2100 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable given in-depth coverage in multiple mainstream national and international news sources and there is absolutely not policy against notability for losing political candidates. A number of perennial candidates have pages that meet notability criteria, especially those with notably heterodox views. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 10:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fails WP:NPOL, passes GNG, largely with the Politco article that provides a certain depth and context about the subject outside of her Senate campaign. I could not find any independent, reliable sourced reviews of her book, so she does not appear to pass WP:AUTHOR. --Enos733 (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked for that too, it would be interesting to have an opinion on it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She has received significant coverage. Furthermore, her candidacy was clearly an important factor in the race (even though she didn't win). Information about her helps the reader's understanding of the primary but the level of detail found in a bio article would be clutter in the main article about the primary. Keep per WP:SS. JamesMLane t c 01:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a GNG pass. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Everyone here continues to use GNG as sufficient. The issue is that all of this coverage is in the context of being a candidate for office. Being a candidate for office is not enough to meet the notability requirements under Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. I am in agreement that she does not pass WP:AUTHOR. The book is not particularly well-selling (even post-Senate run) and I could not find an independent review of it.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:N, WP:GNG is sufficient. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ALSO OF NOTE: The result for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette on April 19th was delete and redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania#Republican primary. The result for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette (2nd nomination) was Speedy delete per CSD G4: the article's content was basically the same as that discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette, with the new version of the article not making any additional claims of notability. I've also salted the page to prevent this from re-occuring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 26 May 2022 (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.