Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ammar Campa-Najjar (3rd nomination) - Wikipedia


Article Images
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. Even if a politician fails NPOL, they can still have an article by virtue of the GNG, as per the consensus here. – bradv🍁 06:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Campa-Najjar (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)

Still fails WP:NPOL. Specifically oppose a redirect and request WP:SALT. John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently has almost 50 sources. That already says WP:GNG has clearly been met. Watch sources disappear soon. So he's a failure of a politician, because he didn't win the 2018 election and only won the 2020 primary by 13 points. Forget WP:NPOL. Before he ran for office, his op eds were published by the San Diego Union-Tribune, The Washington Post, The Hill and three different times by NBC News. You have got to have some serious notability to get published in those publications. Take the smallest of these sources; an editor at the Union-Tribune is a personal friend. If I were to ask him to publish one of my op ads, he'd laugh in my face. I don't carry the clout. NBC has had reporters not last long enough to get three bylines. After working in the Obama White House and with the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Campa-Najjar had it back in 2016 and 2017, before the media imposed blackout caused by his announcing for office. Already, without the conclusion of the current election, at 31, he is an embedded Democratic Party insider. Trackinfo (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People don't get Wikipedia articles by being the author of media coverage about other things, they get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of media coverage written by other people. So the fact that he's written op-eds has exactly jack spit to do with making him notable enough — that isn't a notability clinch until other people have written content about his op-ed writing. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By my count, he wrote exactly four of the 49 sources in the article. That leaves 45 others. Smartyllama (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t bother engaging, Bearcat has been beating the dead horse of WP:NPOL in relation to this page for months now... Doesn’t seem likely that they will stop even if consensus is once again against them. See User talk:Horse Eye Jack/Archives/2019/December#Your submission at Articles for creation: Ammar Campa-Najjar (October 10) and the draft version of the page [1] for more. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notability standards are not "dead horses": they are hard rules. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ability to get a bylines op ed published by multiple major news sources IS a clear indication of notability. An average Joe off the street might be able to get lucky once . . . 6 times, never. Trackinfo (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A person's notability is never established by the extent to which he's been the author of content about other things. Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didnt even review WP:NPOL... If you had you would have noticed that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Campa-Najjar does not qualify as some people because he does not meet the general notability guideline. What's so wrong with waiting until January of 2021?? KidAd (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He clearly meets WP:GNG, "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.” We have in-depth coverage in at least a half dozen global WP:RS and a half dozen more local/regional WP:RS. If he loses in 2021 he will remain notable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every single candidate in every single election in every single place on earth that has competitive elections can always show some evidence of campaign coverage — so if all you had to do to exempt an as yet unelected political candidate from having to pass WP:NPOL just because "media coverage exists", then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL would literally never apply to anybody at all anymore. Which is why we have a longstanding consensus that the mere existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough to make a candidate notable just for being a candidate: to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia without winning the election first, a candidate has to already have preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Bearcat we are well aware of your opinions regarding the subject article... Your refusal to participate in a discussion when the page was in draft mode was frustrating for a number of editors, seems a bit random and nonconstructive to break your silence now. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, what you call my "opinions" are not my opinions, they're completely correct statements about how NPOL actually works: the mere existence of some local campaign coverage is not an automatic GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, because every candidate always has some local campaign coverage.
Secondly, I did say my piece in the draft discussion, and was under no obligation to keep "participating" any further than I already did — and furthermore, if anybody really had questions about my statement, they could have approached me to ask them, but did not. So I frankly don't give a rat's ass how "frustrated" you are by it, because I had no obligation to do anything different than I did. And accordingly, you can also take your opinion of how "random and nonconstructive" is is for me to participate when it gets nominated for AFD, and stuff it in your nearest garbage can. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly passes WP:BASIC, there are multiple full length biographical features on the subject in WP:RS for instance [2]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Biographical" content isn't what we're looking for. The notability of a politician is established by writing and sourcing content about his significance as a politician, not by writing or sourcing where he went to high school or the names of his family members. A candidate gets a Wikipedia article without winning in one of two situations: either (a) he can credibly claim to have preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy (i.e. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) he can show a credible reason why his candidacy was so much more notable than everybody else's candidacies that even if he died tomorrow and thus never accomplished anything else, what he had already accomplished today would already pass the ten year test as a topic that people will still be looking for in 2030 anyway (i.e. Christine O'Donnell.) They don't get exempted from having to pass NPOL just because some campaign coverage exists, because some campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election everywhere. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Biographical" references are not what GNG tests for — "biographical" references are remarkably easy to come by for a lot of people who come nowhere near our inclusion standards. If the availability of "biographical" references were all it took to exempt a person from having to pass a subject-specific inclusion test, then we would have to waive WP:NATHLETE and keep an article about every high school football player who ever had two human interest pieces in his local media about his recovery from an injury. The question of whether the context of what the person is getting covered for clears our notability standards or not is what GNG concerns itself with, not the ability to locate the names of his parents and grandparents and where he went to college. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2020 (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.