Susanna Gibson: The article also has major NPOV issues by presenting aforementioned consensual sex with a spouse as scandalous.  Sceptre ( talk ) 18:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women ,  and Virginia .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 18:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello I wrote the original article draft that another editor published.  I’m not sure how this violates WP:NPOV .  I created the page to try and give the subject a fair portrayal given the sensitivity of her controversy.  I quoted both Gibson and her opponent.  As well as her lawyers’ statement about a possible legal violation against Gibson.  I also described how reactions were varied.  I have tried to be much more discreet than the sources themselves.  Reliable sources are characterizing the situation as a scandal.  If there is any confusion, the scandal is not a politician having consensual sex but streaming it online for tips.  It’s definitely a valid opinion that it should not be seen as a scandal, but I am only characterizing it as the sources have and by following a reasonable definition of the term.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scandal For one who objects to the definition’s implication of wrongdoing.  Definition 3 would still apply.  “malicious or defamatory gossip”  I am thinking of expanding the controversy section to include more reactions because the situation could indicate a turning point in how the public views the sex lives of politicians.  In terms of WP:BLP1E , I think this could fall under it.  But I will leave it to more experienced editors to decide.  YordleSquire ( talk ) 18:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Draftify : I think this probably fails WP:BLP1E .  Also, she fails WP:NPOL , so unless there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage or she is eventually elected this article probably shouldn't be in the main space.  However, since @YordleSquire appears to have created the article in good faith I'd support moving it back to draft space and letting them work on it (if there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage to add or if she is later elected).  But it probably shouldn't stay in main space, they aren't notable for anything other than this scandal right now.  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 21:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am amenable to putting it back in draft.  I am a new editor and submitted the article a few days ago.  It was declined under WP:NPOL and I asked Treehouse for guidance and learned about some relevant policies.  Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#13:36, 13 September 2023 review of submission by YordleSquire I stated there that I would not resubmit unless there were further developments.  As mentioned, another editor moved the article to main space.  It was exciting getting my first article to main, but I will defer to consensus.  In any case, I would appreciate being able to have it back as a Draft if it is not appropriate for main space in case she wins her race.  YordleSquire ( talk ) 22:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia defending censorship.  Priceless.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.224.21.211 ( talk ) 03:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’ve added a sentence to the article summary to possibly help with notability.  The Politco opinion piece which defends Gibson describes it as the first political sex video to spread online.  To quote them directly: “But never before Gibson’s case has a politician’s hot video action spread on the internet.” https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/12/candidate-livestreamed-sex-acts-00115395 YordleSquire ( talk ) 04:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while unelected candidates get articles only if either  (a) they were already notable enough for some other reason to get an article on those other grounds anyway, or  (b) they can show credible evidence that their candidacy is somehow much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance.  Imagine that she loses the election and then never does another notable thing as long as she lives, such that "once ran for election and lost" remains her peak notability claim for the rest of her life — under those circumstances, do people still care about any of this into the 2030s and 2040s and 2050s ?  We would need to see some evidence of that being true, but this isn't showing that at all — as of right now, this all just makes her a WP:BLP1E rather than a topic of enduring importance.  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unelected politicians are not notable unless they've done other things as well, which is not the case here, and there are also NPOV issues.  SportingFlyer T · C 08:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Can you elaborate on what you specifically see as NPOV issues?  In the case that she does win her office.  I will try and fix them.  All of the reliable sources regarding Gibson focus on her controversy.  I have not characterized it any differently than how they have.  YordleSquire ( talk ) 12:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To help address any NPOV concerns I have changed the sentence “Gibson received widespread national attention after a sex scandal revealed that she had streamed pornographic acts online.” to “Gibson received widespread national attention after videos surfaced of her streaming consensual sex with her husband which had been recorded without her knowledge.”  YordleSquire ( talk ) 12:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If she loses this is still a flagrant WP:BLP1E .  SportingFlyer T · C 12:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not move the draft to mainspace.  Another editor did.  I’m more than happy to have it back in Draft.  I’m relatively new here so not sure if that’s something I can do myself.  YordleSquire ( talk ) 12:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per nominator.  Only elected officeholders are presumed notable per WP:NPOL .  Apart from her sex tape or whatever it is which has given her much publications, no other prove of notability.  Jamiebuba ( talk ) 18:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2023 Virginia House of Delegates election#District 57 .  Agree that she is not notable yet, but the general practice here is to redirect to the article on the election.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 20:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or redirect to 2023 Virginia House of Delegates election .  Coverage remains WP:SUSTAINED since the "scandal" broke and clearly will continue at least through the election in November.  Material here shouldn't simply be deleted as it is now a key storyline in the 2023 Virginia House of Delegates election and could affect its outcome.  Per left-leaning Slate , "Susanna Gibson's unexpected scandal could lose Virginia Democrats the state Legislature" [4] Loksmythe ( talk ) 19:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The AP has now published 3 articles regarding Gibson.  What generally qualifies as WP:SUSTAINED ?  https://apnews.com/article/susanna-gibson-virginia-house-of-delegates-sex-acts-9e0fa844a3ba176f79109f7393073454 https://apnews.com/article/susanna-gibson-virginia-house-sex-acts-c2a130b84452b524279b0a496fca2c99 https://apnews.com/article/susanna-gibson-videos-virginia-cae7c9af7117c1a51411278a0a09ebbc YordleSquire ( talk ) 14:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or redirect to 2023 Virginia elections .  This individual is not notable under Wikipedia guidelines.  Wikipedia:Notability (people) spells out three criteria for any biography.  This subject does not meet one, let alone all three of them.  For all of the "look at the coverage," people.  The article consists of run of the mill election coverage and the Chaturbate incident which does not provide substantial coverage of the subject .  That coverage would fall under the disqualifiers for articles as an individual highlighted by subjects notable for only one event .  The fact that this one incident has been put on a lot of websites does not lend notability to her candidacy.  We should not create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers .  Additionally, it is too soon to know if this will matter to the greater historic record.  This story was first published by the Washington Post (which is a LOCAL PAPER when covering Virginia state elections) less than two weeks ago.  It is too soon to determine if this will meet any sort of enduring notability in the historic record as opposed to Christine O'Donnell , Pro Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson) , or Lar "America First" Daly .  Finally, this individual would not meet the criteria to be covered for pornography or sex work which I cannot find, but I know it's not "appeared on a cam site." -- Mpen320 ( talk ) 16:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mpen320 I just want to thank you for writing out the argument she does not meet notability requirements for pornography or sex work, because the thought never crossed my mind and I laughed when I read it. Rare is the argument that is both true and funny, fantastic work! TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 17:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This candidate is getting tons of news coverage, making her notable.  -- LiwenAristodemos ( talk ) 13:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Among that coverage, what sources do you think are lifting her from "temporarily newsy" WP:BLP1E territory into "will actually still be a topic of enduring interest a decade from now" WP:10YT territory?  It's the latter test that she would have to meet.  Bearcat ( talk ) 19:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable.  DarrellWinkler ( talk ) 18:54, 21 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect