Draft talk:Ammar Campa-Najjar

Record of Discussion at AFC

Comment: User:Robert McClenon, I was not saying that it meets GNG, because I haven't made that determination one way or the other. I did say that if the article meets GNG, NPOL is irrelevant. To be more clear, I have no problem with publishing this draft, though I don't know what I'd do if someone nominates it for AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Muboshgu says that GNG supersedes NPOL. I assume that they mean that an article may be accepted on the basis of GNG even if it does not pass NPOL. That is true. I am also assuming that they are implying that the subject satisfies GNG. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we publish it, someone can take it to AfD, and if it survives, that tells us all we need to know. If its deleted, it can be resumed as a draft. Remember GNG supersedes NPOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Robert McClenon: Having taken the page from 13,806 bytes to 26,177 bytes I’m far from unbiased on the issue, I note though that I didn't make a single edit on the page before it was deleted/draftified... I am certainly not a “partisan supporter” of Ammar Campa-Najjar or even from the same state or political party. I say publish it. Its at least c class (probably b class) and there still hasn’t been a coherent argument made to support its non-inclusion in wikipedia. I would also like to tag User:Muboshgu because they were helpful enough to draftify the article for me and should get a comment. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Robert McClenon: I say publish it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Bearcat, User:Horse Eye Jack, User:Theroadislong, User:BD2412, User:Worldbruce, User:MJL, User:WereSpielChequers - What should we do with this draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is almost no question that this would survive an AFD, argument made by bearcat is contrary to that made in WP:NPOL specifically "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this would survive an WP:AFD so should probably be accepted Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not won. This was true in 2018, when he had to be taken to AFD twice because his partisan supporters didn't accept the consensus of the first discussion, and it is still true today: he will have to win the congressional election in November 2020 to qualify for an article, and does not get one just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Based on the discussion above, I am accepting the article based on general notability. If anyone disagrees, they may tag the article for AFD, but they should then argue that the subject does not satisfy GNG. We know that they do not satisfy NPOL, but that doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]