Kelly Tshibaka : Despite being well sourced at a casual glance, most of the 30+ references are related to the election, and in many cases focus on the eventual winner, with Tshibaka only mentioned as an opponent.  Even if this was a particularly contentious or notable election, WP:ONEEVENT would dictate the content is better merged into the election article.  Of the non-election references, only one is actually about the subject (appointment to Commissioner's office).  The rest just have trivial mentions where the subject has been quoted as a government official in relation to the primary topic.  We don't have articles for every local government commissioner just because they occasionally get quoted in Press (and indeed, neither her predecessors nor successors have articles).  This article was created around the time of the election campaign and seems like it was probably created as part of the campaign.  There is no suggestion of notability prior to subject's unsuccessful election campaign.  Fails WP:Politician (not a politician), WP:Bio and WP:Sustained .  Hemmers ( talk ) 09:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women , Law ,  and Alaska .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep .   There’s plenty here, and I just added a new section about her career following campaign.  Anythingyouwant ( talk ) 16:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Saying "there's plenty there" doesn't confer notability.  I can write full length articles going into excruciating detail about local politics using local news.  I can write articles about local sports clubs using 150years of local media reporting of results and prize-givings.  Literally hundreds of references.  There's plenty there... but that doesn't mean those people or organisations meet GNG.  And that's the thing.  There isn't that much there.  It's overwhelmingly WP:ONEEVENT about her unsuccessful election campaign, or else trivial mentions.  Hemmers ( talk ) 08:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete She's not really notable outside her campaign loss, can be redirected to the campaign page.  The new section is just a sentence that would not grant her notability if she hadn't run.  SportingFlyer T · C 04:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Misunderstanding of WP:NPOL : unelected candidates can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline (meaning: has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists ).  No part of the guideline counts only non-election references ; that would be an unreasonable standard for a politician .  I see significant coverage of her life in long features from the Anchorage Daily News , Juneau Empire , The New Yorker (contains lots of profile), etc.  Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 17:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree.   Plus, she has held state/province–wide office, as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration.  Anythingyouwant ( talk ) 17:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Worth noting though that literally none of the other Commissioners who held that appointment (not elected office) have an article.  This is not to say it can't contribute to notability, but we need rather more than "former public servant who controversially but unsuccessfully ran for office" to clear GNG.  Hemmers ( talk ) 11:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I quite agree that an unsuccessful candidtae can meet GNG.  I just don't believe Tshibaka does!  In my view, the issue here is that her personal (non-)notability is being conflated with a contentious race and internal conflict in the Republican Party.  It's totally reasonable that her name would be mentioned in relation to that issue, but it doesn't get her over the fence of notability herself IMO.  Those three features are explicitly in relation to the election race, not profiling her as a notable individual in her own right or on the merits of her career.  This gives us an issue of WP:SUSTAINED .  She doesn't pass WP:POL cleanly, so if we fall back to GNG, we need significant sustained coverage.  But the coverage is all WP:ONEEVENT .  Specifically: Juneau Empire "This is the first in a three-part series of interviews with U.S. Senate candidates."  We don't have an article for Pat Chesbro who was similarly profiled as a fellow candidate .  Should we?  Literally every candidate who stands for public office will get a local news profile.  That doesn't not pass GNG on it's own.  The making of a U.S. Senate candidate: Kelly Tshibaka "Second of three stories on candidates for U.S. Senate in Alaska in the Nov. 8 general election."  Same issue.  She ran, there was some local coverage.  So what?  This is well into WP:ONEEVENT territory.  The New Yorker This is the best of the lot since it's not an Alaskan paper - national interest starts to hint at notability.  Except the article isn't about her - the title is literally "Alaska’s G.O.P. Proxy War".  Tshibaka isn't notable - the story is that the GOP were in a state of internal conflict and there's a split in the party between moderate conservatives and a growing alt-right movement.  If Tshibaka is truly notable in her own right then I would like to see at least one in-depth profile that is not from the election - some example of sustained coverage where an independent journalist has decided "This person is someone worth spending some time on in their own right", but I haven't managed to spot such an article.  Given that the election race was contentious (Alaska & National Republicans falling out) and received unusual attention because of that , the relevant material would surely be better MERGED into 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska and this article DELETED or REDIRECTED .  Hemmers ( talk ) 11:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The lead of this BLP plainly shows that she’s notable even without being the runner-up in a close U.S. Senate race: “Kelly Chaundel Tshibaka (/ʃɪˈbɑːkə/ shib-AH-kə; born September 5, 1979)[1][2][3] is an American attorney who served in the federal government from 2002 to 2019 in several inspector general offices.  Upon moving back to her home state of Alaska in 2019, she served for two years as the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration until 2021.  Tshibaka was a Republican candidate for the United States Senate in the 2022 election.[4]  She lost to the incumbent, Republican Lisa Murkowski, by about seven percentage points.[5][6]  Thereafter, she became a leading opponent of ranked-choice voting in Alaska, as well as head of the Trump 2024 campaign in that state. ” Anythingyouwant ( talk ) 14:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm unclear what your purpose is in quoting the entire lead.  The other holders of those federal government posts do not have articles.  Should they?  If anything, that's an argument against her notability.  Pretty much every political candidate has a pre-politics career.  Working in govt is no more notable than working in the private sector.  Is Tshibaka's work in government considered more notable that Pat Chesbro's career in teaching?  As I have stated, we need some evidence of significant, sustained coverage outside of the election to show this article goes beyond WP:ONEEVENT.  A couple of trivial mentions in articles relating to strikes?  That's not GNG.  As for this statement: The lead of this BLP plainly shows that she’s notable even without being the runner-up in a close U.S. Senate race .  I'm afraid this is plainly false.  The article was created when she ran for office - not when she was commissioner.  None of the other commissioners have articles or are considered notable.  Even if she is notable now (which is dubious), she was definitely not notable prior to her campaign.  Her latest work against ranked voting may make her notable WP:LAGGING , but I'm still on the fence whether she's there yet.  Anyone can start a political lobby group on paper and shove out some press releases.  Still doesn't make them notable.  Hemmers ( talk ) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hemmers ( talk ) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m glad you’re on the fence now.   Notice that Pat Chesbro was a relatively minor candidate, she got about 10% of the vote compared to 43% for Tshibaka.   Even if Tshibaka had not been runner-up in a statewide election, hadn’t campaigned against ranked choice voting, and hadn’t been put in charge of a statewide presidential campaign, still being commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Administration for two years could be enough.   See the people listed at Ministry of Public Administration (Croatia) .   If anyone is still unsure about notability here, take a look at the list of references.  Anythingyouwant ( talk ) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Croatia analogy doesn't make any sense as that is a ministry, and not all of those people even have articles.  It's very simple: she would not have had an article created on her if she had not run for office, and candidates are rarely notable.  SportingFlyer T · C 17:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A ministry is the same thing as a department.  Anythingyouwant ( talk ) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not really on the fence.  She's not dead - consequently I'm open to the idea she will be deemed notable in future (WP:LAGGING).  But I don't think she's there yet.  This is not a high bar.  I could also be notable in the future.  So could you.  Her commisionership is absolutely not notable.  AFAIK she wasn't involved in any notable reforms/revolutions or scandals during that time.  So what would make her two years in office any more notable that any other Commissioner (she would be the first to have an article)?  All I'm asking is "What makes Tshibaka notable, given that unsuccessful candidates generally aren't considered notable?"  WP:NPOL allows that some unsuccessful candidates may be notable.  But I keep being bombarded with "Here's coverage during the election, which incidentally, the other (non-notable) candidates got too", which doesn't really help!  What is the "extra" that gets Tshibaka over the line?  Your list of Croatian officials is misplaced - those individuals are (as far as I can tell) elected politicians - not employees of the ministry or civil/public servants.  As we all well know, Tshibaka is not - and has never been - an elected representative.  That's why we're having this discussion.  Hemmers ( talk ) 12:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Death would be a rather high bar for notability (although such a bar would probably improve Wikipedia).   NPOL is unambiguous: “The following are presumed to be notable: [1] Politicians and judges who have held … state/province–wide office…. [2] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage…. [3] people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.”  Tshibaka qualifies under all three of these, though only one is needed.   Her notability is also a lot more substantial than unelected officials like Richard K. Allen , Arsen Bauk , and Dubravka Jurlina Alibegović .   This is my last comment here, let’s see if other Wikipedians would like to weigh in.  Anythingyouwant ( talk ) 18:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] P.S. Regarding [3], WP:GNG says, “A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.”  The references in this BLP obviously satisfy this requirement.  Anythingyouwant ( talk ) 17:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] P.P.S. Just came across List of third-party and independent performances in United States Senate elections .   You can see dozens of BLPs listed there for losing candidates who have a lot less notability in reliable sources than the person we’re discussing.   Also, people here who support a redirect are not suggesting moving this article’s content, which violates WP:PRESERVE .  Anythingyouwant ( talk ) 00:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's still a disconnect to me in asking to show that a political candidate is notable without using sources about her political candidacy—again, all NPOL asks for is multiple news feature articles , which is plainly not something every candidate gets; your emphasis on in her own right is misdirected.  I hate to bring up WP:OSE , but We don't have an article for Pat Chesbro is textbook.  Your point about WP:SUSTAINED / WP:BLP1E coverage rules out only people likely to remain ... a low-profile individual , which she is not.   And as for the [ New Yorker ] article isn't about her , WP:SIGCOV means more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material .  Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 18:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All I am asking is: "What makes Tshibaka notable, given that unsuccessful candidates generally aren't considered notable?"  All I have received in response is "Here's a bunch of coverage during the election, which incidentally, the other candidates got too".  Please let's leave individual sources & profiles out of this and let's focus on this one question which I have now asked twice and received no response to.  Her candidacy is NOT on it's own notable.  Otherwise we would be doing articles for EVERY candidate (yes Chesbro, but also EVERY candidate for EVERY Senate/House seat), and we patently don't do that.  So this is not WP:OSE.  This is asking why Tshibaka is the exception to the rule .  The occasional unsuccessful candidate who tips the scales into notability.  Yes - WP:NPOL allows that.  Why does Tshibaka qualify for that?  What else has she got going for her?  Hemmers ( talk ) 11:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand your position, and yes, the best sources I've found come from the election.  But your standard doesn't seem to be in line with our guidelines; let's leave individual sources & profiles out of this is rarely the way to go about determining notability.  Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 14:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But your standard doesn't seem to be in line with our guidelines It certainly is.  Our guidelines (WP:NPOL) are that an unsuccessful candidate may be notable, but this is exceptional or predicated on independent notability (e.g. Donald Trump was notable before he ran for office. George W. Bush was previously Governor of Texas, etc).  Tshibaka is not notable.  She doesn't pass NPOL and she doesn't (as far as I can tell) pass WP:ANYBIO either.  No Commissioner before or since has been deemed notable.  This is not WP:OSE.  It's possible that she is notable... but notability must be clearly shown .  What makes her exceptional?  I have asked repeatedly for someone to put forward some suggestion as to why she is notable over and above her unsuccessful election campaign.  Nobody is able to do so.  So in what way am I out of step with the guidelines?  I'll be honest, I almost feel a bit gaslit at this point.  All I want is for someone voting 'Keep' to answer: What has she done that is objectively and clearly notable?  She is not unique or special for being a government official who later ran for office.  And her government career was undistinguished - no major scandals/reforms/projects.  Nobody can tell me what the 'extra' is that gets her over the line.  That's all I want to know.  I'll be leaving this conversation and Afd here because people seem to be more interested in citing policy ( WP:NOTBURO ) than answering the very simple and reasonable question of "How does she meet GNG?", and I don't want to start accusing people of poor faith.  I've made my points so continuing to go round in circles seems unproductive.  Hemmers ( talk ) 14:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska .  The article does not meet GNG, as her notability comes only from that election.  JohnAdams1800 ( talk ) 23:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska .  The sourcing is because of her campaign, she is not independently notable.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 16:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Probably not meeting political notability, but we have enough sourcing as a civil servant to ! keep.  The USA Today and AP articles are about her.  Not really notable for one thing, but many different things together, if that makes sense.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] > we have enough sourcing as a civil servant to ! keep Is that notable though?  Does an unremarkable period as a Commissioner qualify as notable?  It hasn't for other commissioners.  Maybe she's notable but she would be the exception.  Most civil servants are not notable unless they oversee some major scandal, reform or event.  The sources on her government career are Wikipedia:Trivial mentions relating to strikes and such.  They're one-liners of "the commissioner said", not articles about Tshibaka.  Hemmers ( talk ) 14:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per previous arguments.  Coverage of Tshibaka as a commissioner almost entirely consists of passing mentions.  No evidence of notability, especially now that she's lost her campaign.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 04:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect.  I suppose keeping the page would be suitable as well, but as has already been discussed, the insufficiently non-election related sourcing causes me to interpret the page as one relevant to the broader public more for election notability purposes than as the civil servant she also is.  The page may also justifiably be kept as the length of the encyclopedically relevant body of text already embedded into the article meets Wikipedia's standards, not to mention how there is an overall mixed attitude by the users in this debate on the subject's broader political notability (ex. lack of consensus on the article's future potential); some are right when suggesting that the article provides just enough sufficient information on this candidate per the extent of the coverage not normally witnessed in other instances.  There is a big downside to this, however: it's tough to say when enough becomes enough , and as such I believe redirecting this page - while keeping would suffice - serves as the better option in this instance.  TheMysteriousShadeheart ( talk ) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Still see a division here between editors arguing to Keep and those advocating a Redirect.  Based on past AFDs, I'm leaning Redirect but thought I'd relist this discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm ok with the redirect if it goes that way.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article does cover some info about Tshibaka outside the election, it's not that bad in terms of sourcing and per Hameltion.  Just because she lost an election doesn't make her any less notable if the article is well sourced.  Plus, she appears to be active post-election via activism against rank-choice voting and being chair of Trump's Alaska campaign.  -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk ) 00:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska .  I’ll support the group consensus but feel strongly that she does not have the necessary notability in her own right to merit her own article.  I’ve edited thousands of Wiki pages for federal political candidates and officeholders, and the difference here is she:  a) was unsuccessful and thus did not serve in the office that she sought, and  b) she has not yet achieved a significant level of notability in business, politics, education, or other ways one would qualify for a WP:BLP article.  Running an unsuccessful race is not enough for her to qualify on her own, but her name should certainly redirect to the 2022 election article about the campaign in which she was a candidate.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 18:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska as a usual an appropriate outcome for candidates running for federal office in the United States.  I also believe that some of the veriable information can be added to the page about the election.  -- Enos733 ( talk ) 15:29, 19 May 2024 (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