Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betsy Sweet

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. Reading through the discussion, deletion just about pips draftification. However, if someone would like to work on the article outside of mainspace, I'm more than happy to restore it as a userspace draft; drop me a message on my talkpage if you 'd like to take it on. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy Sweet

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I see evidence of notability through her long-term activism and multiple runs for office, so I nominated for deletion rather than let it be prodded into deletion.--TM 15:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TM 15:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. TM 15:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete candidates for office are almost never notable for such, Sweet is clearly not an exception to this rule. Wikipedia is not a platform to post campaign literature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable current candidate and past failed candidate, all of the coverage is about her candidacies and not about her activism. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 15:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; strongly oppose redirect; permit draftification Election candidates should not generally have articles per WP:NPOL, unless notable for independent reasons. Article stand-up in an campaign period is problematic especially as per here if the instantiator stands up an article with issues. While issues from that stand-up have been identified and eliminated any items which might used for notability are either supported by un-awesome sources that are not WP:RS for those items. From once no article then no redirect either as despite what essays some administrators might point at either a redirect for all candidates or for none .... unsensensible to do it for every candiate from the non-quacking heavy muscovy drake party so not sensible to do it for any. No qualms about persons elected to high enough position or notable for some reason ... which would be better passed via the WP:AFD process and bar and ideally outside of a campaign.109.157.77.207 (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per NPOL. Or if not, serious cleanup, reads like campaign brochure. I did a news search to see if I could find reports of her activism. Instead, I discovered she owes Maine $8,100 for mis-spending Clean Elections money, a recent news story that somehow was not in the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC) (see below, changing !vote to Draftify)[reply]

@HouseOfChange Please present a precise source for the $8,100 allegation or there needs to be a call for that to be rescinded including a Wikipedia:Revision deletion. Thankyou.86.158.216.81 (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@86.158.216.81: The "recent news story" I mentioned above is one of the few Google News search results for this person. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary-sourced promotional article for a non-notable politician. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You didn't take my suggestion on the talk page and went forward with the AfD. WP:NPOL excludes mere candidates with the exception being if they achieve WP:GNG. I have added a considerable number of reliable sources, mostly Maine local media discussing her achievements, separate from the run for Senate, over the last couple of decades. I could add more but I don't want to source bomb this. The point is clear, WP:GNG is achieved. The delete votes above could have found this stuff by doing a WP:BEFORE, but deletionists don't ever do that. When most of them voted there were 5 sources, now there are 19. Two days ago I had never heard of Betsy Sweet, but then I don't live in Maine where she is a political player. This stuff is available on google, please just look before you delete. I see my old foe JPL was the first to chime in with a Delete vote. I'm not surprised. He hasn't seen an article he doesn't want to delete. I'd rather not go into the rest of the ad hominem on the lengths he would go to delete articles. I just wish you'd stop listening to him. Trackinfo (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo I'd hold off on the notability chest-thumping for a minute, because 19 citations doesn't mean much when you're quoting mostly the same sources (nearly half of the cites are from Bangor Daily News alone) and Press Herald being an inaccessible paywall site (aside from Sweet's self-published article), all while verification issues with several other sources remain. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The newspapers are not blocked and have nothing to do with Sweet's self published content. The major newspapers in the home state of a politician are exactly the place to expect to find coverage. Trackinfo (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: Unfortunately WP:CITEBOMB is precisely what you did. When a cite just does a minimal URL+title+sometimesWebsite it really doesn't begin to show it's notability. Dates and Authors tell a lot as to whether journalists are working off of press-releases and blindly following primary sources. An there's a lot of that in the sources presented. An interview is nearly a no-no for a WS:RS during a campaign. So with respect it is all a bit vague and its unclear if you really understand WP:RS. If you wish to continue this source defence please present your three best sources here for scrutiny per suggestions at the essay WP:THREE. Thankyou.86.158.216.81 (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you an SPA? 3 edits and you found your way here? OK, I ran ReFill, something I abhor if you read my personal page; We have multiple articles on a variety of subjects spanning a decade from the Bangor Daily News. That is the large daily newspaper you would expect to cover a major political leader in their state. I am arguing WP:GNG, thus I show we have lots of coverage. Though refill didn't pick it up, each of them have a separate byline. We have The Portsmouth Herald, from New Hampshire, in the guise of "seacoast online.com" with a byline, The Portland Press Herald article predates me and is behind a paywall. Another major daily in the state. When it was filled it had a byline. She also wrote an oped in the Press Herald which sources her position. We have the statehouse scandal reported by The Seattle Times. WMTW is the ABC affiliate in the state. A political report from The Hill. These are not press releases, blogs or other lightweight non-reliable sources. Do you understand WP:RS? Don't go casting aspersions on my asparagus. Trackinfo (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She's a locally notable failed candidate, and we typically don't keep those articles. Her activism isn't independently notable. The Seattle Times article just quotes her, it's not at all significant coverage. I think it's still a crystal clear delete. I was the original PRODder, by the way. SportingFlyer T·C 00:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff added [1] She give a speech as director of the Maine Women's Lobby in 1984, [2] is a 1997 derogatory editorial identifying her as writing the curriculum of a statewide anti-gay bigotry and violence program. In the editorial, she is criticized by name for being a "homosexual activist" and promoting "diversity mongering rubbish" so I have not included it in the sourcing. [3] is a 2010 mention of her history "as an advocate for women at the State House." [4] was published in 2009 (I originally picked up the wrong year) where she is being given the Lifetime Achievement Award from EquailityMaine, obviously for work she did well beforehand, ten years ago, even well before her run for Governor. [5] is a protest she organized from 2016 perhaps motivating the later run for governor. And behind a paywall she's named in the title of this one. That covers four different decades. Trackinfo (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you looking for sources, but I don't think any of those pass WP:GNG on their own (first one isn't sigcov - just a person in a list, second is derogatory as stated, third isn't independent, the Equality Maine isn't sigcov (she's just one in a list), she's only discussed three times in the protest she organised, and the article where she's named in the title was written by her. There's still nothing here on which to hang a notability hat. Also, I disagree with those wanting to draftify, as American elections are not for another 11 months if I'm not mistaken, and drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity? SportingFlyer T·C 05:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable yet.NotButtigieg (talk) 07:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trackinfo has now added many references but nearly all date from 2018-2019: people describing Sweet's past in the context of her being a candidate. For WP:NBIO we need in-depth, significant coverage of Sweet for something she did other than be a failed candidate. The closest thing seems to be her work with EqualityMaine, which got some press coverage but I didn't see anything in-depth about Sweet herself. Maybe just WP:TOOSOON. I think the request above for three good RS is a good one. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates for federal office do not pass WP:NPOL. It does not appear that the subject passes WP:GNG (even accounting for the subject's past run for Governor of Maine). Since there is no obvious redirect target and that some of her background can be added to 2020 United States Senate election in Maine, the page should be deleted and not remain as a campaign brochure. --Enos733 (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. As a failed candidate and a future candidate, neither position meets WP:NPOL. WP:UNDUE concerns. The coverage that would count as significant coverage of the subject is routine campaign profiles, typical of election season. Bkissin (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (changing my !vote from Delete, above) Although I think it is TOOSOON for GNG, Trackinfo has put some work into improving the article. If Sweet becomes notable, it would be good to have that information and structure preserved. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I agree that Sweet is probably not notable at this moment, but I think with work and deeper research, she has the potential to be.--TM 17:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This is legit work on someone who could very likely pass notability requirements soon, so it is counter-productive to delete. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and there is not enough significant coverage outside of her campaigns to pass WP:GNG at the moment. The article can be recreated if she wins the election. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:38, 3 January 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.