Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabrielle Giffords: Difference between revisions

Comments for inclusion and expansion: More articles on notable people like politicians running for office, be it a municipal race, a national legislature, or an executive position, are important. One of the great strengths of Wikipedia is the fact that it contains current and up to date information as well as obscure information that is hard to find in other places. But the key is: information.

This articles subject is hardly borderline, to say so is very subjective. Her inclusion needs to be objective and external links can be objective or subjective as long as they add information on the subject. The simple fact that this subject is a credible candidate in an election makes her anything but borderline. Elections are the lifeblood of the political process of a republic. Adding in the accomplishments of this subject (youngest woman elected to AZ Senate) and the case of calling her borderline makes even less sense.--Utahredrock 14:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from nomination for deletion: This article's subject is a borderline non-notable person. Gabrielle Giffords is currently only a candidate for the US House of Representatives, not actually a current politician. She was the youngest woman elected to the Arizona Senate, but I don't think that this makes her notable enough for inclusion. DarthVader 08:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am reverting the edit by 67.40.93.236 (talk · contribs) because it slightly messes up my nomination statement. It seems obvious that this article will be kept, but I wish to offer an explanation of why I did nominate the article in the first place. There seem to be a couple of candidates for this election that are going to have their pages deleted; for example John Courage. When I came across this page, it looked like she was pretty well was just a candidate for this election, as well as once being a politician in the Arizona Senate. I agree with nae'blis that since she is no longer a politician she is not necessarily still notable. Also, being a candidate for this election does not imply notability either. I asked on IRC first before nominating this article for deletion, and a few users said that she was not notable, so I nominated the article. I didn't prod because it is obviously a borderline (and therefore controversial) case about notablility, so I took it here to ask the community whether this person is notable or not. It seems that the consensus will be to keep the article, and that is completely fine by me. At the end of the day, I wanted the community to look at this article and decide on its notability so that we can be sure that our articles are about notable people. To be honest, I was simply unsure of its notability; it wasn't that I "deemed" it to be unworthy. DarthVader 05:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (from JChap (talk • contribs) 23:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)) User:Utahredrock deleted the above nom and inserted the following in its place:[reply]

• Further comment User:Utahredrock replaced the ad material and linkspam I had deleted from the article. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on Further comment What is meant by "ad material and linkspam?" This is information on Giffords--the point of having an entry in an encyclopedia is to contain information.--Utahredrock 04:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply This is "ad material and linkspam." How does "Giffords hopes to be part of a Democratic wave in the fall that will take the U.S. House back from the Republicans who have been in control since January 1995" qualify as encyclopedia content? JChap (talk • contribs) 10:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to reply This is a point well taken and in the last version I removed the comment about the hoping to be part of a Democratic wave. Clearly that crosses a line into inappropriate political rhetoric. At the same time, the external links, which I am restoring again, provide additional outside information which is important for people to see.--Utahredrock 14:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This is absurd. Giffords is an accomplished Arizona politician and the leading candidate to replace Jim Kolbe. In a democracy citizens need as many sources of information as possible on their candidates. This article was created in attempt to provide basic facts and links to information on Giffords. It's bad enough how much politicians have to spend to get their messages out, Giffords, and candidates from all parties and levels of government are important to our political process. Supressing information about them makes no sense. Wikipedia exists not to promote a candidate or cause but to serve as a source of information. The discussion for deleting this article makes no sense. Instead people need to write more articles on other candidates.--Utahredrock 21:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Recreate if she wins seat in US House, but as of now she is a non-notable politcian hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Appears to meet most of the WP:BIO bit Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage but seems to miss out on the Major requirement. I agree with Hoopydink that winning will make her notable but at the moment she's just another candidate. --Peripitus (Talk) 09:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I think that state senators are only notable in certain circumstances, such as when they are particularly powerful and/or serve for many terms. I think she would be notable enough, by Wikipedia standards, if she wins the election. -- Kjkolb 09:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and recreate if per hoopydink. Giffords hopes to be part of a Democratic wave in the fall that will take the U.S. House makes it sound like the interest in creating this article was not primarily encyclopedic. ~ trialsanderrors 10:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no prejudice toward recreation if she wins. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I do not think we should have articles on U.S. House of Representatives candidates, but I think we should have articles on all approximately 7,500 state legislators. As a [former]--Utahredrock 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) state senator, she meets the "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature." requirement of Wikipedia standards for article notability.[reply]
  Presently Wikipedia has articles on many members of the California, Texas, New York, Quebec, Ontario, and Tennessee legislatures. In the interest of conformity, I advocate that the results of this debate also be applied to other articles existing almost entirely on the basis of that person being a member of a state legislature. In addition, while I do not think being a candidate for a federal legislature is a qualification in itself to be listed in Wikipedia, I think it adds to the qualities listed above.
  An issue does not need to be decided at the federal level for it to be important. When an issue is to controversial for it to be handled, it is the state legislature that decides whether to set a minimum wage above the national level, to ban or allow gay marriage, to arrest you for possessing marijuana, to allow euthenasia, to raise state taxes, and if you can be arrested for not buckling your seatbelt. If a state legislature does not cooperate with the executive branch under certain circumstances, then, as in New Jersey, the government may even shut down. Please consider this when deciding whether or not non-federal politicians, judges, and cabinet members have a place in Wikipedia. Thank you. Daniel Bush 18:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per general rule on state/provincial legislators. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if cleaned up as a [former]--Utahredrock 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) state senator, standards are met for an article, but in this form, it's a campaign ad. --DarkAudit 18:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --JJay 21:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BIO. I stubbified it so it's no longer an ad. JChap (Talk) 00:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Borderline, but as [former]--Utahredrock 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) state senator and per WP:BIO I lean slightly in favor of this one. --Wine Guy Talk 00:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. That she is the youngest woman elected to the Arizona Senate is significant, and distinguishes her from other politicians at a similar level. If the notability guidelines must be used, then she passes WP:BIO as a member of a state legislature. --bainer (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- As a sitting state senator, there should be lots of info available about her. -- Mwalcoff 03:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and fix up. I've actually heard of her (I'm in her state), so she's at least somewhat notable.--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Wine Guy and bainer above. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep but make it more biographical. --Kitch 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: To all of the above who voted keep, please note that she is not a current state senator! She was an elected official from 2000-2002 in the Arizona House, and 2003-2005 in the Arizona Senate, but she's currently not in office. Whether or not her past status is enough to make her notable is up for debate, but let's get our information straight. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being elected to a state legislature makes someone worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, according to the Wikipedia notability policy, whether now or 200 years ago. Information relating to her service in the Senate seems to have been temporarily removed, though I'm sure, given the lack of trouble I've had in finding things to write about current Tennessee senators, that there will be little trouble in finding something related to her past service. Daniel Bush 23:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please point out for me where we say that someone who has once held a state-level office is worthy of a biographical article. All I can find is Wikipedia:Notability (people), which uses the verb "holding", implying that they currently have the position. Once they leave office, not all will continue to be notable, will they? -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really have a strong opinion on state legislators, frankly I think simply being a state senetor does not confer inherant notability, but the current guidelines state otherwise. But just for clarification, are you suggesting that once someone leaves state office that their WP article should be deleted? The guideline really does need to be cleaned up in this respect. --Wine Guy Talk 07:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if cleaned up Agree with DarkAudit's comment, sitting or not. Disagree with Nae'blis. MKV