- 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Lyra Evans
- Lyra Evans ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- a person has to win the election and thereby hold the seat, not just be a candidate, to be considered notable as a politician. But the only grounds for claiming her candidacy to be more notable than everybody else's candidacy in the same election is that she's the first transgender candidate to be nominated by one of the three dominant political parties in Ontario -- as opposed to the first transgender candidate to be nominated by any political party in Ontario, a distinction which Christin Milloy beat her to by seven years. But if you have to start adding a string of extra qualifiers to actually make her the first of something, because other people have already beaten her to unequivocated firstness for that same something, then she doesn't really have a genuine notability claim. And the referencing shown doesn't make her a special case, either, because every candidate in the upcoming election, regardless of their gender identity, could always show as much local media coverage as this. No prejudice against recreation on or after June 7 if she wins her seat, but nothing here is enough to already deem her notable just for being a candidate as of April. Bearcat ( talk) 03:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 03:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.
Bearcat (
talk) 03:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't previously commented on an AfD page, so I will format this like I would a Talk Page entry; apologies if that's not the correct format. I think that yours is a perfectly reasonable position, and I will once again disclose my COI as I did on
the article's talk page: I know the candidate and I created her article, so I invite you to approach what I say as skeptically as you wish on that basis. However, I think it is still worth voicing the two reasons that I honestly believe that the article's subject passes the notability guidelines. First, two of the sources are CBC articles, not articles in Ottawa outlets, and seem to me exactly the "national or international press coverage" mentioned in
WP:POLOUTCOMES. A quick search for the other candidates in this race shows no similar coverage beyond Ottawa, except of course for the sitting MPP
Nathalie Des Rosiers (who is clearly notable). This is the central claim you made that I would challenge: she has received non-local coverage, and I don't think it's true that the other candidates (except the incumbent) have received similar non-local coverage. Second, I completely agree with you that her gender identity and the accompanying coverage is the only grounds for claiming her notability. What I believe in contrast is that it's categorically different to be nominated by a party which regularly elects MPPs and even forms the government than to be nominated by a party which has
never won a seat. There's even
a legal basis for the distinction between what we're colloquially calling "major" and "minor" parties. I don't see what other qualifiers could as reasonably be appended to justify future "firsts". --
Astrophobe (
talk) 03:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Firstly, both of the CBC sources are from the CBC's local Ottawa bureaux (English and French), not from the national news divisions — so they represent local coverage, not nationalized coverage, for the purposes of determining whether a candidate clears the "special case over and above most other candidates" bar or not. And secondly, being nominated as a candidate by one of the NDP/Liberal/PC troika is not automatically more notable than being nominated as a candidate by one of the smaller parties — how many MPPs who aren't Lyra Evans the party has or hasn't elected prior to Lyra Evans is entirely irrelevant to whether Lyra Evans is notable just for being a candidate or not. And finally, if you know her personally then you have a
conflict of interest.
Bearcat (
talk) 06:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- You seem to imply that it would be news to me that I have a conflict of interest, so I will point out that I repeatedly disclosed that conflict of interest exactly as the guidelines require, including at the very start of the message you were ostensibly replying to. --
Astrophobe (
talk) 20:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- The rule is not that as long as you disclose a COI you're free to just do whatever you want with impunity. The reason COI has to be disclosed is because COI articles require a special level of heightened scrutiny to ensure that they're actually following our rules, not because COI editing is somehow OK as long as you admit it.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- Huh, so it's certainly a good thing that I absolutely never implied that I thought any of those things! Astrophobe ( talk) 09:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- The rule is not that as long as you disclose a COI you're free to just do whatever you want with impunity. The reason COI has to be disclosed is because COI articles require a special level of heightened scrutiny to ensure that they're actually following our rules, not because COI editing is somehow OK as long as you admit it.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- You seem to imply that it would be news to me that I have a conflict of interest, so I will point out that I repeatedly disclosed that conflict of interest exactly as the guidelines require, including at the very start of the message you were ostensibly replying to. --
Astrophobe (
talk) 20:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Firstly, both of the CBC sources are from the CBC's local Ottawa bureaux (English and French), not from the national news divisions — so they represent local coverage, not nationalized coverage, for the purposes of determining whether a candidate clears the "special case over and above most other candidates" bar or not. And secondly, being nominated as a candidate by one of the NDP/Liberal/PC troika is not automatically more notable than being nominated as a candidate by one of the smaller parties — how many MPPs who aren't Lyra Evans the party has or hasn't elected prior to Lyra Evans is entirely irrelevant to whether Lyra Evans is notable just for being a candidate or not. And finally, if you know her personally then you have a
conflict of interest.
Bearcat (
talk) 06:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't previously commented on an AfD page, so I will format this like I would a Talk Page entry; apologies if that's not the correct format. I think that yours is a perfectly reasonable position, and I will once again disclose my COI as I did on
the article's talk page: I know the candidate and I created her article, so I invite you to approach what I say as skeptically as you wish on that basis. However, I think it is still worth voicing the two reasons that I honestly believe that the article's subject passes the notability guidelines. First, two of the sources are CBC articles, not articles in Ottawa outlets, and seem to me exactly the "national or international press coverage" mentioned in
WP:POLOUTCOMES. A quick search for the other candidates in this race shows no similar coverage beyond Ottawa, except of course for the sitting MPP
Nathalie Des Rosiers (who is clearly notable). This is the central claim you made that I would challenge: she has received non-local coverage, and I don't think it's true that the other candidates (except the incumbent) have received similar non-local coverage. Second, I completely agree with you that her gender identity and the accompanying coverage is the only grounds for claiming her notability. What I believe in contrast is that it's categorically different to be nominated by a party which regularly elects MPPs and even forms the government than to be nominated by a party which has
never won a seat. There's even
a legal basis for the distinction between what we're colloquially calling "major" and "minor" parties. I don't see what other qualifiers could as reasonably be appended to justify future "firsts". --
Astrophobe (
talk) 03:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: I suggest this should be kept as draft until the Ontario election results are announced around 8 June. It could otherwise be interpreted as publicity.-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- As WP:POLOUTCOMES indicates, we have an established consensus not to retain deleted articles about unelected candidates in draftspace pending the election results, because draftspace isn't meant to be a repository of campaign brochures either. If she wins the seat, then an administrator can restore the article with one click of a button, so there's no compelling need to hang onto premature candidate articles as pending drafts. Bearcat ( talk) 02:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable just by being candidate. Acnetj ( talk) 09:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect to Ontario general election, 2018 candidate section where she can be mentioned if she isn't there already. Some mainstream news coverage and historical significance. FloridaArmy ( talk) 12:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I added additional citations and info. Now appears to pass WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Lonehexagon ( talk) 06:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- All of the new sources you added are still local coverage in a campaign-specific context, and there isn't even an unusually large volume of that. Routine campaign coverage in the subject's local media is not enough in and of itself to get a candidate over GNG just for being a candidate, and thus exempt her from having to clear NPOL by winning the election first — if it were, then every candidate in every election anywhere would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL, so our established consensus that candidates are not notable just for being candidates would be inherently disembowelled. There are only two ways to make a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article without winning the election first: (a) she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides being a candidate, or (b) the coverage of her explodes so far beyond the ordinary and routine (e.g. her candidacy started getting covered in the United States and Europe) that she has a credible claim to being a special case over and above most other candidates. But neither of those has been demonstrated here at all.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- She has received nationwide coverage, and I disagree that she's only getting routine coverage. There is a great deal of the coverage with significant discussion about her an an individual including her past, and what her nomination means for the party. Another idea is to merge the information on the party page and/or the election page.
Lonehexagon (
talk) 21:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- If she's received nationwide coverage, this article as written is failing to cite any of it — there's not a single source in the article that escapes the local. (Even the sources I'm pretty sure you think you're talking about by claiming "national", the CBC and Radio-Canada, are not to those organizations' national news divisions, but to their local news bureaux in Ottawa — so they are not "nationalized" coverage for the purposes of making an unelected candidate special. Bearcat ( talk) 06:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- She has received nationwide coverage, and I disagree that she's only getting routine coverage. There is a great deal of the coverage with significant discussion about her an an individual including her past, and what her nomination means for the party. Another idea is to merge the information on the party page and/or the election page.
Lonehexagon (
talk) 21:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- All of the new sources you added are still local coverage in a campaign-specific context, and there isn't even an unusually large volume of that. Routine campaign coverage in the subject's local media is not enough in and of itself to get a candidate over GNG just for being a candidate, and thus exempt her from having to clear NPOL by winning the election first — if it were, then every candidate in every election anywhere would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL, so our established consensus that candidates are not notable just for being candidates would be inherently disembowelled. There are only two ways to make a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article without winning the election first: (a) she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides being a candidate, or (b) the coverage of her explodes so far beyond the ordinary and routine (e.g. her candidacy started getting covered in the United States and Europe) that she has a credible claim to being a special case over and above most other candidates. But neither of those has been demonstrated here at all.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Notability as first trans candidate (from major party) is minimal, but would certainly be notable as first trans MPP. I wish her luck in the upcoming election. FUNgus guy ( talk) 02:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete candidates are almost never notable as such, no exception here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- 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.