Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiral Tipirneni

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. Keep has a plurality, but there are also several merge/redirect and delete opinions that can't be easily dismissed. Sandstein 15:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hiral Tipirneni (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)

Candidate for office, her only coverage is pretty routine, even if she is running in a "special election" page still fails WP:N. If she wins the special election then the article can be kept/recreated. Most of the sources are just WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the type and volume that's expected of a congressional candidate.

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As yet unelected candidates for office do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se. She needs to win the election, not just run in it, to be considered notable as a politician, and otherwise needs to already have been notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides her candidacy. The claim on the talk page, further, is that she is notable because she "has received national media coverage", but a candidate does not magically clear that bar the moment one piece of more than local coverage exists. It takes a volume of nationalized coverage that's approaching Christine O'Donnell proportions — O'Donnell got so much national coverage that her article is actually twice as long as, and cites three times as many distinct sources as, the article about the actual senator who defeated her — to make a candidate a special case over and above most other candidates. Just one piece of nationalized coverage is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete she is not independently notable from her political campaign. SportingFlyer talk 08:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Arizona's 8th congressional district special election, 2018, and merge any useful content there, which ought to be the standard procedure in such cases. Of course, the article will be recreated if she is elected. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this AfD could have waited until after the election, which was my plan. Keep if she wins, redirect if she loses. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope - once you're notable, you're always notable. She is not yet notable, therefore this is a valid AfD. SportingFlyer talk 17:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would've made it much easier to determine whether or not she is notable if we knew if she's a member-elect to the House or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. That's why this is WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer talk 23:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose you're right. So, delete, but I may have to come back and change my vote on Tuesday. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why did I say delete? Redirect. It's a reasonable search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Comment - Vote the same but below Wikipedia needs to learn that we don't have firm rules about elections and that our guide post is WP:N. Do more sources need to be added? Certainly. But a quick search of news (you can do it at the top of the page), lists national RS after RS. These are different times because these elections are happening in the context of Donald Trump. Special elections are seen in this national context. That is the reality of all these special elections, from Jon Ossoff to Conor Lamb.Casprings (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNG does not appear to be met here. Much of the coverage where her name is mentioned are passing mentions, or about her campaign, or the general political environment. There's very little about her, and none of it appears likely to be WP:SUSTAINED. Unless she wins. Mentioning Ossoff and Lamb is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Ossoff really did get national attention, while this race is more localized. Lamb, he won. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Winning a congressional seat may make a person immediately notable but not yet winning or even losing does not make a person automatically not notable. Notability is completely based on whether the person has been significantly noted in several reliable sources with regional and national audience. Tipirneni has been noted in such sources with significant detail and frequency. She is notable whether or not she wins the election on April 24th. Keep, no matter what happens next week. ---Coffeeandcrumbs 03:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Muboshgu explains it well above. Yes her name has been mentioned in non-local media outlets, but its entirely about her campaign in this "special" but Routine election. Jon Ossoff is the standard on when elections candidates become notable and this article does not meet that. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ErieSwiftByrd and Muboshgu: I disagree. I ask you to look at the many national media sources I have added to the article. Also remember that she is headed to a close loss and, unlike Jon Ossoff, she will be running in the regular election in November. A marginal loss in a Republican controlled district will likely garner continued coverage in the media. I predict that even if we redirect this page, we will likely go back to the current version of the article very soon.---Coffeeandcrumbs 23:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? The Fox News factoid piece? That is about her, but all of the other ones are about the race, not about Tipirneni. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I am starting to understand the distinction. ---Coffeeandcrumbs 02:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about The New Republic article? That seems more than routine.---Coffeeandcrumbs 02:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Arizona's 8th congressional district special election, 2018. We have generally treated the campaign as notable, but not necessarily the candidates in the election (even with candidates running for a U.S. House seat in a special election), because the coverage of the candidate is within the context of one event (in this case, an electoral contest). The reason for this is that candidates, even major party nominees running for Congress in the United States, regularly (if not often) fade back into obscurity and generally are low-profile individuals. Any relevant details about a candidate can live on the page for the election, including major biographical pieces as well as major campaign themes (reliably sourced). That all said, it is not advisable to start an AfD within a week (or two) of an election. It can be interpreted as unnecessary interference in the electoral process and votes may change if a subject wins their election. --Enos733 (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page was a Redirect. But was changed back and forth on multiple occasions during the last month. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)   [reply]

• Speedy Close I've requested a speedy close at WP:AN. Having this discussion occur during the election is absurd. I'm neutral as to that speedy close being a keep or a redirect (or the elusive "speedy no consensus"). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reuping my keep vote from above. Again, people (and the events they take part in), need to be seen in context. Normally, we wouldn't keep bios from people who loss elections for US congress. I understand that. However, this should be seen in the context of what is happening in US politics. Right now, these special elections are seen by WP:RS as highly significant because they are seen by WP:RS as a key indicator for the political environment under President Trump. Moreover, these events are significant enough, the people involved in them are WP:N, even if they lose. A simple question to ask is this. In WP:10Y, would someone who wants to study this period want these bios or not? We are here to be useful, now and in the future, and not to hold to some firm rules.Casprings (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't vote twice. It's misleading to the closing admin to write "Keep" in bold twice. I suggest you strike one. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with Casprings. --Fadesga (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with Casprings. The alternatives are worse. Wikipedia's election articles have been limited to horse-race information for many years now. Candidates, (viable or not) are only allowed a link to their own campaign website, a list of endorsements (if any), and a few words describing themselves (e.g., physician, former state senator, businessman, physicist). Therefore, those recommending Merge are being misleading as this article's information will not be moved, but will disappear. That is a fact. Those recommending Redirect or Delete are actually recommending the only information available to Wikipedia's readers should be a candidate's own campaign website, UNLESS that candidate is already an incumbent of a political office (or perhaps a reality TV star). I don't believe that view properly reflects the mission of Wikipedia. People rely on Wikipedia for reliable information. I don't believe write-ins and no-hopers (for example, those polling in the single digits with no money and no serious third-party coverage) should have their own articles, but that is not the situation here. Congress is, arguably, more important than any video game yet an imaginary character is deemed notable but someone who could plausibly impact the future of over 350 million people in the U.S. alone is not? Wikipedia has better goals and priorities than that, and Wikipedians must live up to that. 174.197.11.200 (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People rely on Wikipedia for information about topics that pass the ten-year test for enduring significance, not topics that are temporarily newsy. The test a person has to pass to qualify for an article is not just "does some media coverage exist?", but "does some media coverage exist in a context that makes her a person readers will still be looking for information about in 10, 20 or 50 years?". Officeholders clear that test, while candidates normally do not — every candidate in every election always generates some media coverage in that context, so just having some campaign coverage is not enough in and of itself to deem a candidate as passing GNG and therefore exempted from having to pass NPOL. If she does not already have preexisting notability for other reasons, then the test that a candidate has to pass to get included in Wikipedia because candidate is not "does some media coverage exist?", because some media coverage never, ever doesn't exist for any candidate — the test she has to pass is "does enough media coverage exist to deem her a special case over and above every other candidate in every other election", and the sourcing here is not demonstrating that Hiral Tiperneni passes that standard. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the subject meets WP:GNG, so WP:NPOL is not that applicable. There are profiles covering her life and career; this is not routine coverage. I.e.: Who is Hiral Tipirneni? What to know about the Arizona congressional candidate, Fox News, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is the sourcing here demonstrating her as a special case who's somehow more notable than every other candidate in every other election who always gets as much (or more) campaign coverage as this article cites? Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:GNG is certainly met here. There are numerous articles covering the election and Tipernini herself that fit WP:RS.Tvlover19 (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the others. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirect to Arizona's 8th congressional district special election, 2018 per WP:NPOL, no evidence of notability independent of the special election; keeping would be reflection of recentism. Mélencron (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to Arizona's 8th congressional district special election, 2018. Those arguing to keep have failed to demonstrate that this is not a case of WP:BLP1E / WP:BIO1E. Yes, much has been written about her but all of it, as far as I can tell, because of her running in this one election. Our policies and guidelines advise against creating stand-alone articles for living people who have not been notable outside a single event (election) and instead, per WP:ATD, the information should be merged to the article about the election. If and when she runs again or does something else noteworthy, the article can be recreated. Regards SoWhy 11:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is running again. Why take the page down if she already meets the standard you mention in your last sentence.Casprings (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the sources say. Citing the AP source here: "She said Tuesday night that she plans to run in November's general election and told supporters not to give up the cause." (emphasis added). Plans change. Plus, this coverage is again only related to the same event, i.e. the election she just lost. It's not coverage of the new election or her as a candidate in the next election but as the candidate of the losing election. Regards SoWhy 15:10, 4 May 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.