Talk:Theresa Greenfield

Untitled

NOTE: The subject was determined to be notable and this article was authorized for re-creation by the meta-discussion reviewing the "Articles for Creation" and "Deletion Review" discussions, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive327#Theresa Greenfield.

She is not notable, but her candidacy may be

I commented at the AN thread about this, but it probably wasn't the right place; maybe WT:N is, for the general case. In any case, the notability criteria for an event are different than for a person, which is why Death of Sandra Bland is notable as a WP:BIO1E, and Sandra Bland is not. For this specific case, I kind of agree that Theresa Greenfield is not notable, but Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield may be, as a WP:BIO1E. I tried to make this point at AN, and the response there was,

2020 United States Senate election in Iowa is the article for the "one event" in question.

which is a fair point. But I think the case can be made that the topic "Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield" is notable in its own right, however, since WP:AN is not an article-improvement forum, it is not the right place to carry out an investigation into it, and this page is. That said, I am not *that* interested in this topic, so I just want to lay out my train of thought here and hope someone else will pick it up, if interested. I may not be back, so if this helps, great.

From my read of the guideline, I can see some parts that argue against such a new topic, and others in favor of it. In the "against" camp, I'd list this:

In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person.

So, given that, and if we assume that she's not notable on her own per previous discussions above, then since we already have an article on the "event" (i.e., the Senate race), we don't need one on the person. But, that portion does not argue specifically against the creation of a new article whose topic is a narrower, more focused event, which may also be notable in its own right. However later, that same section also says this, which has a different focus:

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.

Greenfield's role in the 2020 Senate race is very clearly a large one. But, does it argue for the creation of a more narrowly focused one than the existing one, or not? It seems to be mute on that question. The next quotation won't settle the question, but argues that it might be compliant to create one. The illustrative example they use is unfortunate in the context of the present topic, because the example deals with political assassination; but let's try to ignore that and just deal with what the example is trying to tell us about notability criteria, and ignore its macabre domain:

The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

I would say that Greenfield's candidacy fits this category, too, as indicated by voluminous and ubiquitous coverage of the event in reliable sources that devote major attention to Greenfield's role, and not merely to the fact that it's a "2020 Iowa Senate race". Accordingly, I would say that Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield meets the criteria set forth in the WP:BIO1E section of the Notability policy for creation of a BIO1E-style article named after an event and including the person's name, a la Death of Sandra Bland. One more quotation of policy, just to make sure: the BIO1E section goes on to give an example where a separate article may not be necessary:

When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King.

This last point, perhaps counterintuitively, is what persuaded me that "Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield" *may*, in fact, be a notable topic according to the guideline. Why? Because the analog to "George Holliday" in this case, is "Jordanna Zeigler", Theresa Greenfield's campaign manager. If you search for her, you'll find a decent number of reliable sources mentioning her, including: Politico, TIME, cbs2Iowa, Globe Gazette, Iowa Starting Line, The Guardian, Iola Register, and so on. However, it's not significant coverage, and it all relates to Greenfield's candidacy. This tells me that "Jordanna Zeigler" is not significant enough for an article; she is Theresa Greenfield's "George Holliday". If anyone created a page with that title, clearly it would have to be a redirect.

But there is an overwhelming amount of coverage of Theresa Greenfield's Senate candidacy, with numerous articles where her candidacy is the entire focus of the article and named after her, or a major part of the article. I think therefore that "Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield" meets the bar of WP:BIO1E.

As to how to deal with the overlap with the currently existing article 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa, I think standard Summary style guidelines should apply. That is, most of the detail about the *candidacy* should be in the new article, as child, and more focused on Greenfield, and that should be summarized in the existing article, which would be the "parent" article, per Summary style. Thanks, and good luck! Mathglot (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"She is not notable, but her candidacy may be" - then the article should stand and all that's left is a dumb argument about naming. Artw (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Robert and Muboshgu for laying things out clearly above. (Not pinging them because of the discussion above that being pinged here was stressful; there's nothing further to be done here just now.) Mathglot You're right that the candidacy is clearly notable and has a great deal of reliable national coverage. And Artw yes it seems the questions are primarily how to name the article, and what to do with redirects in the main namespace (notably: where to link Greenfield's name when it first appears in other articles, and whether to make it easy or hard for people looking to contribute to a bio to figure out where to do so.) – SJ + 01:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Artw:, I largely agree with Sj, and even with most of your comment that it's about naming. But in my view, that's hardly "a dumb argument", because the title determines the topic, and if there is consensus that Theresa Greenfield is not a notable topic, but Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield is notable, then the upshot is that if you try to move this article to Main space under the current title, it will get deleted or redirected, whereas if you rename it to the longer title, the article will remain, and you can continue to expand it. That's a pretty big difference, so I don't see that as a dumb argument. But yeah, it is about naming, and if you want to see this article survive in main space, I think that's pretty much your only path to that outcome; at least, I don't see another possibility.

Remember that Notability is a property of the *topic* of an article, not its content. The exact same exact article may get deleted under one title, and kept under a different one. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That's pedandty and silliness, someone notable for being a candidate is notable. Artw (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree on this, this is a pedantic argument that is doing Wikipedia as a whole a disservice. Other threads have mentioned that a suggested search term for Greenfield is to her non-existant Wikipedia page, from people trying to find out about her, so Wikipedia and Wikipedians have a responsibility to ensure that this article exists for those trying to find out about Greenfield. There are multiple examples of perennial candidates that are both affiliated with major and minor United States parties, or just as independents, that have had less press coverage than Greenfield has had in the last several months. These articles are not being contested, and are not being suggested to be converted into "Candidacy of" articles. Cmahns (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a backward argument. "People are searching for it" isn't a criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia. "Wikipedians are responsible for a topic's existence" isn't a criterion for inclusion. There is no requirement for Wikipedia to cover every topic that exists. And to bring up WP:OTHERSTUFF? You know very well that each article is evaluated independently regardless of what other crap might exist on Wikipedia; the same argument would also apply to draftify or delete those other articles, rather than promote this one to main space. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Artw:, I'm afraid that in Wikipedia-world, "someone notable for being a candidate is not necessarily notable." This is very clear if you read WP:NOTABILITY. That's why we have Death of Sandra Bland and not Sandra Bland. Wikipedia's definition of "notability" is not the same as the English sense of the word. If you want to change that, please raise a discussion at WT:Notability, and try to get your view accepted by consensus, and written into the policy. But as long as the Notability policy is written the way it is, the title matters, and Greenfield is not notable per se, but may be notable as under the longer title. In any case, trying to get the article under the current title accepted, is a fool's errand, so it depends what you want. Do you want to see this article accepted, or not? If yes, a name change is, in my opinion, your only possible path to that result. Arguing here that you disagree with WP:N won't change anything. Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Never mind; I see that this is moot now, as the article has been moved from Draft: to mainspace, per section #Towards closure at WP:ANI#Theresa Greenfield. Mathglot (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Is Tom Brady's page listed as "Football Career of Tom Brady"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.197.8 (talk • contribs)

No policy-based opinion on the notability of this subject, but the history of our article, particularly AN's contentious discussion about it (thread at time of writing), including input from the Founder seat (1, 2), has now been reported in Slate and the Washington Post.

Not really sure what this means for the article. <3 Folly Mox (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Policy Positions Section

Is the section on her policy positions--and the language used--too in-the-weeds and/or too favorable towards the candidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.197.8 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The material added in this edit clearly violates WP:PROMO. KidAd talk 18:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Definitely too in the weeds; only a few parts had indepedent cites. I kept a few lines that were sourced. – SJ + 20:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Endorsements

@Charlie918: A list like this is not very useful or discriminate. Adding to the paragraph that provides a brief summary of the most notable endorsements (or statistics about categories of endorsements) can be fine. For instance, Axne isn't mentioned currently. – SJ + 20:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Iowa Starting Line source

@Marquardtika Can you explain your comment "not WP:RS, see List of political disinformation website campaigns in the United States" on your removals of references to https://iowastartingline.com/? I don't see that website on the list of disinformation campaign sites, so that is a confusing edit comment. I also don't see Courier Newsroom on that page. The page at https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/iowa-starting-line/ describes it as having a left bias but factual reporting. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see: in the recent edit at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_political_disinformation_website_campaigns_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1253058940 a person removed Courier Newsroom from that list. I agree with that person that there is a meaningful distinction between pink-slime journalism and disinformation campaigns. Can you take your concern to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard so that Courier Newsroom sites can get a more thorough discussion, and ideally get listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with a consensus assessment of their reliability? That would be helpful and constructive. I'm concerned about this being a one-person effort to remove a set of sources from a variety of articles, especially without replacing them with better sources. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned with Wikipedia using sourcing that is paid for by political action committees and explicitly intended to sway voters to vote for particular candidates/parties. That this type of "journalism" is dressed up to look legitimate makes it all the more concerning. See The Columbia Journalism Review: "There are certain parallels between Webster's pragmatism and justifications offered by advocates of using partisan local news to promote political messaging – especially those on the political left. One of the most visible networks is Courier Newsroom, a self-described 'pro-democracy…civic news organization' that is led by former Democrat strategist Tara McGowan and was funded via a progressive 'dark money network.' Courier operates news outlets in ten key swing states (with Texas 'coming soon'), producing content that is microtargeted at voters (via extensive social media amplification) with the intention to inform, but also to persuade." Or check out Open Secrets: "Courier has faced scrutiny for exploiting the collapse of local journalism to spread 'hyperlocal partisan propaganda.'" Or NOTUS: "undisclosed funders and glowing coverage of Democratic candidates raise questions...." Or Axios or Wall Street Journal. If you want to start a broader discussion at RSN go ahead. I frankly don't see the point when it's so obvious that content produced by Courier in no way passes muster as a reliable source. Marquardtika (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)