Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Swift (2nd 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 Redirect. There is a clear consensus that Kat Swift is not notable at this point and that this should be a redirect to "an appropriate page". Two such pages were suggested with no real discussion of either, and there is little to choose between them so I've slightly arbitrarily chosen 2008 Green National Convention, but this can be discussed or changed as a normal editorial action. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Swift

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Not notable by WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate page.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - As a politician, she has never been elected. The previous AFD was kept primarily based on the belief she would be a presidential candidate in 2008; in fact she failed to gain the nomination for her party. This leaves only the WP:GNG to reasonably measure notability against. I see lots of mentions, and she is quoted a lot in her roles with the Green Party, but no songificant coverage about her that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect seems to be appropriate given the article on the convention noted below. -- Whpq (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2008 Green National Convention, she is already mentioned there. Per nom. & Whpq, not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability in her own right.--JayJasper (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Query: What has changed since the last attempted deletion?--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - In the previous discussion, most editors assumed that she would be the Green Party candidate for the 2008 presidential election; assumed that sources would be available as a result of running for president; and as such the article ought to be kept. Now that 2008 has passed, we know that not only did she not run for president, she didn't even win the Green party presidential nomination. The expected coverage didn't materialise. WP:CRYSTALBALL seemed to be the predominat reason for keeping, but that is really a reason for deleting. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors assumed she would run for president, which she did. If you do a search, there are a multitude of reliable sources available of her as a perennial candidate for offices in Texas, for her 2008 campaign, and her efforts as a Green Party operative. Therefore, I am inclined to Keep.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC) (And note that I nominated the article for deletion in 2007; the subject was not notable then, but is notable now)[reply]

She did not run for president. She ran for the Green Party nomination. If you can point out some of the reliable sources, that would help determine notability. -- 20:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Running for the nomination = running for president. You can find plenty of reliable sources here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that runnign for the nomination is equal to running for president. But that's secondary to coverage. I did conduct a google news search and based on the results, did not find the type of coverage needed. Simply having a lot of search results is not the same as significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can disagree all you want, but you are still wrong. Running for the nomination is the same as running for president. As for your search, it must not have been very thorough since one should conclude that coverage is significant in the articles linked.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't conclude based on the search results. I actually pulled up articels and read them. They aren't significnt coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you read every article (about 100) listed in the search above from reliable sources including the ones that are only available by pay and from that you determined that the coverage was not significant?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not. But I did devote quite some time to reviewing the results. I'll quite happily change my mind if appropriate coverage can be demonstrated. It has never been a requriement that every single possible search result be exhaustively reviewed before deciding significant coverage exists. Since you beleive it abounds, then please present some. I really am very open to keeoing this article, but not without the requisite coverage presented to demonstrate that keeping it is the right thing to do. -- Whpq (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list, and it is not exhaustive, but it demonstrates significance:

--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not seeing in the links above "significant" coverage by my reading of WP:GNG. Mostly it is comments from her, but very little about her. Given that there are numerous references to her, I'm now leaning towards redirect as suggested above. If I can be shown significant coverage that is directly about the subject, I'll consider withdrawing the nomination.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've had a chance to review those links aside from the paywalled items. They are exactly the sort of items I reviewed and dismissed as not significant coverage and failing to establish notability. Those articles are not about her, they are quoting her or are just passing mentions. Based on the excerpts on the paywalled items, they don;t look to be any better. My !vote remains unchanged. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2008#Green Party; subject has been mentioned in multiple non-primary reliable sources, that being said the subject has not received significant coverage in any of those sources, and it is my opinion that added up together there is not enough that will add up as a single significant coverage source. Therefore the subject fails WP:ANYBIO. Furthermore the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN; that being said the subject was a nominee for a national office, as such WP:POLOUTCOMES is relevant and a redirect is prescribed where the subject has received some coverage (even significant coverage) for being a candidate for a notable event as the subject can be seen as falling under WP:BLP1E.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The stories linked above go into enough detail to establish notability. They are significant (WP:SIGNOV says they "need not be the main topic of the source material"). These sources notwithstanding, swift's chairmanship of the Green Party of Texas, and her participation in numerous elections, and activism for the Green Party, environmental causes, and ballot access, demonstrates a prima facie case of notability and significance. The deletionist impulse above reflects and fosters an ignorance of third party politics and American politics as a whole. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Your claim of a prima facie case of notability by simply running in elections is directly contrary to WP:POLITICIAN which states "Just being...an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability", and goes on to indicate that these unelected politicians would be notable through significant coverage. As for the significant coverage int he articles linked above, the only one that really qualifies is the interview int he Metro West. The next most significant is a 4 sentence paragraph out the Fog City journal, a local San Francisico online volunteer news site. That's not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She was elected as chairman of the Green Party of Texas. You mention two sources above in which coverage is significant. That comes from eight sources above, which I listed in a non-exhaustive search. There are many more out there.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman of the Green Party is not a political office, but I'm sure you will argue it is. The two sources I mentioned represent the BEST of the lot. The others are passing mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2013 (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.