Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gil Cisneros

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

The result was no consensus. I see no consensus in this discussion for deletion of the article, and a reasoned argument that the collection of minor points of notability adds up to sufficient notability to remain in the encyclopedia. bd2412 T 20:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Cisneros

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

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

Subject fails

WP:COATRACK for a political advert on the part of candidate for elective office. There is a longstanding and very strong community consensus that, with rare exceptions, we don't create articles for political candidates who have never won an election and who are not otherwise independently notable. The community has also tended to consider lottery winners as falling under BLP1E and not presumptively notable. (There have been odd exceptions such as persons who won the lottery and later ran into high profile legal problems or the ultra rare cases of persons who won the lottery more than once.) This despite the fact that both lottery winners and political candidates do tend to draw a certain amount of attention from the press and media. In the case of political candidates one of the principle reasons we don't do articles for unelected candidates is that they have an unfortunate propensity for becoming political adverts, this article being a textbook example. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-What the nom sez.∯WBGconverse 02:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep absolutely relevant --Nanorsuaq (talk) 05:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After reading Muboshgu's comment above I reread my nominating statement and realized that I was perhaps too strong in some of my language. A reasonable person could read that and interpret it as an accusation of bad faith which it absolutely is not. To the extent that it sounds that way, I apologize. However, I stand by the substance of my nomination. Lottery winners frequently donate money to charity or endow charitable causes/organizations [very laudable] and this naturally gets a certain amount of attention. But I can't think of any instance where that was considered as enough to establish notability contra BLP1E. And the community's longstanding and very strong consensus against articles about unelected candidates for public office remains. Lastly, while again I do not wish to infer bad faith, the article does in fact read like a piece of hagiography. Re:Nanorsuaq- I don't recall "relevance" as a criteria for inclusion in any of our policies and guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat. The substantive notability claim here, and the reason why this article was created, is the election candidacy — but candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and if you take his candidacy out of the equation the lottery/philanthropy content is not substantive enough (or sourced well enough) that he would have qualified for an article on that basis independently of his status as a candidate. The only sources here that exist outside of the campaign-specific context are a single article in his local newspaper and two citations to the same "public relations platform for philanthropists"
    WP:NPOL or not — but as a candidate whose campaign coverage is not showing any signs of being unusually deep or broad compared to most other candidates, he doesn't pass NPOL. Certainly it can be recreated in November if he wins, but nothing here now is enough to convince me that he's already permanently notable today. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to the page on the election. He doesn't pass
    WP:NPOL - yet. If no consensus to redirect, read this as a delete vote. SportingFlyer talk 20:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to
    π, ν) 01:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nomination, at least as revised above. Turning it into a draft text would not be an undesirable outcome. -The Gnome (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This subject meets the
    WP:GNG
    criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", enough that the article can be expanded to mitigate concerns about hagiography. In addition to the ten sources currently in the article, there are a bunch of national sources with substantial coverage of notable aspects of his campaign, including:
  • Washington Post: "Two Democrats in a blue-trending California congressional district locked horns Friday over a short piece of audio — a voice mail that candidate Andy Thorburn claims candidate Gil Cisneros left on his wife’s phone."
  • NBC News: "Cisneros and Jammal are part of a surge of first-time Democratic candidates around the country, in what is largely seen as a backlash against Trump."
  • Politico: "Gil Cisneros and Andy Thorburn, two millionaire Democratic candidates for a battleground House district in Southern California, had been attacking each other so ruthlessly that party leaders encouraged them to meet at an Italian restaurant in Los Angeles last month to force a truce"
  • The Hill - "The DCCC went further to prevent a potential shutout, spending $1.5 million against Huff and Nelson, as well as hundreds of thousands to boost Cisneros."
  • The Intercept - "The ongoing battle between Cisneros and Thorburn over the voicemail is the latest in a contest that has become increasingly heated."
Dreamyshade (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this ignores the very strong community consensus that we do not create articles about candidates for political office unless they are clearly notable independent of their candidacy. It is taken for granted that political campaigns, especially for national offices (Congress etc.), will generate news coverage. This is not new and has been well established for a long time. Ignoring it would open the encyclopedia to a flood of similar hagiographies. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Considering his coverage goes back beyond his campaign to his winning the lottery and setting up foundations, I think he's notable. At the least, I hope a closing admin would redirect to preserve the article history over deleting. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I disagree on the notability question, but FTR I am fine with a redirect. The subject is a Democrat running for Congress in a very left leaning state. There is a good chance they will win in November at which point they gain instant notability. No point in reinventing the wheel. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I ask in good faith to learn more: is this consensus (that notability must be independent of their candidacy) documented in any guidelines? At
WP:POLOUTCOMES I see "Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability". These guidelines seem consistent with the idea that a candidate can be notable based on substantial independent coverage including coverage of their candidacy. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment The way we have interpreted this over the years is (and this is the concise version) a candidate must be either independently notable of their candidacy to get an article, or the candidate must have received so much coverage people will still be looking for information about them per the ten year rule. SportingFlyer talk 07:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is this interpretation documented in any notability guidelines, perhaps even any widely-accepted essays? I looked for essays but only found an ancient obsolete essay,
WP:10YT the ten year rule is not a rule, but a test ("a thought experiment that might be helpful"), and based on its question of "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?", I do generally believe that information about 2018 campaigns will be relevant and interesting to readers in ten years, because this is a significant election in American history. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment It looks like User:Narayansg wrote a deletion discussion vote at Talk:Gil Cisneros, so copying it here for reference: "I strongly believe that this page should not be deleted. Having won the primary election in a highly competitive seat, Gil Cisneros is likely to become a U.S. Congressman. This article should be improved to improve its neutral POV, but should not be deleted." Dreamyshade (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dreamyshade for making sure my comment is not ignored!- User:narayansg
  • Keep Wikipedia is a better place when it has more info on political candidates because in a democracy voters must have an independent and neutral source of information. This article is well-sourced and has correct information, and does not violate BLP or NPOV (although it can and should be improved). The voters of CA39 deserve a well-sourced, neutral, and accurate source of information. -User:narayansg
Comment This is not the purpose of wikipedia - does the candidate pass WP:GNG? SportingFlyer talk 07:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is not a better place when it has more info on political candidates. For one thing, in an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, a politician's article can easily be skewed by either his supporters or his opponents so that it is not independent or well-sourced or neutral or accurate — we always have to maintain a constant state of extreme vigilance to prevent our articles about politicians from being turned into advertorialized campaign brochures and/or attack pieces. It's simply neither feasible nor sustainable for us to maintain an article about every candidate in an election in addition to an article about everybody who's actually held office, because the amount of work it takes to keep that many articles in a properly encyclopedic state exceeds the capacity of Wikipedia's resources. So sure, the voters need a source of quality information about the candidates they're being asked to consider voting for — but it isn't Wikipedia's role to be that source. Ballotpedia can do that, but it's not our job. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The voters of CA39 might deserve, as you say,
rules about articles. -The Gnome (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the article is written in a somewhat promotional tone, and some of the sources seem promotional as well. Would need to be rewritten if kept. Not really notable outside of the race for Congress. Should be a redirect to the election page until more independent coverage of him (and my guess is there will be as the election gets closer) is published. Tillerh11 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Revote struck Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)) There is no reason to remove an article and then put it back again. This article does not violate any policies of Wikipedia, as there is plenty of independent coverage of this candidate. Narayansg (User talk:Narayansg|talk)[reply]
Narayansg, please note that you get one vote in an AFD discussion. You may comment as many times as you like, but you may not preface any of your followup comments with another restatement of the keep vote you've already given. And incidentally, there have been many situations where an article got deleted, but was then allowed to be recreated at a later date when the notability equation had changed — so no, the possibility that a person might clear a notability standard in the future is not a reason to keep a
WP:TOOSOON article about a person who hasn't already cleared a notability standard today. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The lottery win and philanthropy stuff is being sourced primarily to
WP:GNG for that independently of the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the note here, Bearcat. I'm confused-- where are there primary sources about the win? There's a lot of non-primary sources listed here ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) specifically about the lottery win that were written contemporaneously. I think that an article about someone who was only a lottery winner or only a political candidate would clearly fail BLP1E, but I think the combination of both pushes the article over the edge. I've modified my keep !vote to "weak keep" though as I think it more accurately reflects my sentiments. Nomader (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat and Nomader: There are no primary sources used in this article. I don't know who added Ballotpedia as an inline reference, but that can be replaced with more standard news publications. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Inside Philanthropy" is not a
reliable or notability-supporting source; it is a PR platform which quite regularly republishes philanthropists' own self-authored press releases about themselves. Those and the two Ballotpedia citations are what I'm talking about — they do nothing to support notability at all, and they add up to almost a third of the sourcing here. And no, the combination of both lottery winner and political candidate doesn't push him over the edge — a candidate doesn't get to claim notability for his prior career just because his prior career gets mentioned by way of background in the candidacy coverage, because every candidate's candidacy coverage will always mention their prior career by way of background. The coverage of him in the purely lottery winner context would not have been enough to get him in the door on that basis on its own. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gil_Cisneros&oldid=1068997054"