User talk:Enos733

Archives

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 4.

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! TheThingy ^Talk 00:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Notability and Political Candidates Proposed Guidelines

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for starting this. I think we have needed this for quite some time to better implement policy, to avoid biting newcomers, and frankly protect candidates from unscrupulous Wikipedians for hire who trick candidates/campaigns into thinking a Wikipedia article would be helpful. I don't comfortable directly editing someone else's sandbox so I have left these two thoughts below.

I feel a lot of articles about candidates are violations of WP:CRYSTAL and that CRYSTAL should be mentioned in the context of creating an article immediately after a candidate announces for office. For example, this is an AfD for Danica Leigh. Less than three months later, Danica did not even submit a filing to the Illinois State Board of Elections as demonstrated at this listing.
You say Candidates who are the certified winner of their election but do not assume office (that meets WP:NPOL) are generally kept. This does seem to be true at the US House level as we have retained articles for Luke Letlow and others. However, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Evans, it was determined that, given the lack of coverage of Dawn Evans, it should be a redirect. The situation where an article is created for someone who is almost certain to assume office, but then does not assume office is rare enough that we don't really have a consensus. There was a similar one for a Dutch parliamentarian elect whom I cannot immediately recall. I would rephrase it to read "may or may not be kept depending on circumstance."

Mpen320 (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

EDIT: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Geurts is what I was referencing when I mentioned the Dutch parliamentarian.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see what we end up with as an essay, rather than changes to NPOL. As to your second point, I don't see a difference between "generally kept" and "may or may not be kept" except that your phrase suggests that it is more up in the air than a rare occurrence (most of the time, we are dealing with a death, rather than a refusal to take office). - Enos733 (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2025 (UTC)Reply