User:Mpen320/NPOL Thoughts

Why NPOL Does Not Really Include Statewide Appointees

I believe that there are some appointees (i.e. non-elected) in US statewide offices with larger portfolios of responsibility who can meet general notability guidelines or subject specific guidelines that are not NPOL. This is not about those appointees. There are seven appointed State attorneys general, fifteen appointed/indirectly elected secretaries of state, and thirteen appointed/indirectly elected state treasurers. I would never claim that the Alaska Attorney General should not be included in NPOL. It is the chief legal officer for an entire US state and an occupant of that office almost certainly can meet GNG through their legal career.

The area where this starts to get vague is for other appointed statewide officeholders such as large department leaders, members of governor-appointed boards, etc. The question is whether so many such non-elected appointees can meet a threshold of notability that we should presume each and every such person should automatically be eligible to have a stand-alone article under “statewide officeholder,” without having to demonstrate notability. My belief is no. We cannot presume each and every one of these people is or will become notable for their role.

Most of my examples will be from Illinois, but I believe they are applicable across jurisdictions so there is no need for me to write this forty-nine more times, and then six more times.

The ministerial nature of many state departments and agencies makes a presumption of notability incorrect. The administrative tasks, non-discretionary box checking, and the like are very unlikely to meet any sort of test of historical significance or even receive contemporary significant coverage. So why should we presume that the leaders of such departments (particularly those with shorter tenures) should be PRESUMED AUTOMATICALLY to be notable?

Statewide departments, particularly the above mentioned ministerial departments, are often led by career civil servants who are otherwise low-profile individuals for whom secondary, independent sources are unlikely to exist. There will undoubtedly be a plethora of press releases and possibly some subsequent churnalism, but truly independent content is much less likely to exist than it is for the elected officials given the presumption of notability at present.

Do we really think every single head of the Illinois Department of Central Management Services should be presumed to be notable? There are probably CMS directors for whom such sourcing exists, but do we really think all of them are so near-guaranteed, we should just say everyone who holds the post should have an article by virtue of having held the post for a single day?

Secondly, even if we decide at least some non-elected statewide heads should be presumed notable, the present wording provides no dividing line at present on where that presumption stops. Is it merely the heads of larger departments like the Illinois Department of Agriculture (whose last three appointees met NPOL as former state legislators)? Or do we go down to the lead person of the Illinois Planning Council on Developmental Disabilities who supervises seven employees? Is sitting on the Illinois Enterprise Zone Board automatically notable? Said board is appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. It also covers a niche subject area, but that subject area is statewide. EXCEPT, it also rarely meets. In its 40+ year history, it has been rarely to barely in the newspaper. Do we really think the appointees to such a board should be presumed notable?

That is not a one-off example. The Governor of Illinois has hundreds of appointments that can be considered statewide. There is no reason to presume all or many of those who have held, currently hold, or will hold those positions should have a Wikipedia article. These appointments go down a few rungs. The Governor nominates, and Senate confirms, Assistant Directors and Division Directors. The full depth of how many middle management positions are subject to governor-appointed/Senate-confirmed can be found through a google search of "Nominates" "Director of" site:www.ilga.gov.

Those seeking to strike a balance of deletionism and inclusionism might try to draw a line at “state-level cabinet.” The problem is the definition of statewide cabinet official, is too broad and too inconsistent across US states to be useful as a criterion. The Florida Cabinet consists entirely of statewide elected officials who then oversee some agencies. The Arkansas Cabinet by contrast are agency/department heads and at one point consisted of 42 officeholders (now consists of 15). Are we saying that by virtue of the word cabinet that all Arkansas department heads are presumed notable, but only some Florida department heads who may be leading similar departments/agencies could possibly be notable?

An NPOL-based exception for such US state-level appointees to demonstrating the significant, sustained, independent coverage that we would require for private-sector and nonprofit-sector individuals of similar positions and background would turn Wikipedia into something very close to what Wikipedia is not; indiscriminate stubs saying that X person was in Y job for Z amount of time and nothing more. Such content, per WP:NOPAGE, would be redirected to an article about the department or just outright deleted for any comparable subject.

TLDR: State departments are often ministerial and receive little to no coverage, their appointed leadership are often career civil servants or otherwise low-profile individuals who themselves receive little to no coverage, and governors appoint far more people than one would assume for positions far less notable than one would assume, but that can be considered “statewide.” Giving presumed notability to such a large group of people otherwise unlikely to be notable would open a floodgate of non-encyclopedic perma-stubs saying that X person was in Y job for Z amount of time and would contradict numerous parts of WP:BLP. There is no universal definition across states that would be a helpful dividing line to distinguish notability amongst non-elected statewide officeholders other than already existing policies like general notability guidelines or non-NPOL subject-specific notability guidelines. We should choose to keep non-elected statewide officeholders out of NPOL.

State Legislators

Many state legislators with a typical amount of time and activity in office can generally pass GNG, even if a large number of articles are the state legislature equivalent of "John Doe is the Mayor of Cityville." HOWEVER, there are a number of post-election caretaker appointments such as Cory Foster, Phyllis Petka, Jim Kirkpatrick, Russell Geisler, Kathleen C. Moore, John J. Fisher Jr., James S. Emery, Jr., Yadav Nathwani, and Gary Daugherty, that I do not feel should be included in this presumption of notability. Google Russell Geisler for a full demonstration on the lack of sustained coverage of caretakers. This is not an Illinois-specific issue. Other states do not use special elections and will have similar caretaker appointments. WP:BLP1E would normally preclude someone with only a week of service in a state legislature from otherwise being notable, but for the universal presumption under NPOL. Caretakers, particularly those who only serve weeks, should be carved out of NPOL in favor of a guideline that subnational legislators are notable if they have introduced legislation, voted on legislation, and been assigned to committees.

Similar points can be made about:

• Partial term members (i.e. Edward Guerra Kodatt, or Yoni Pizer or Janet J. Joyce)
• One-term members of state legislatures generally
  • Specifically, a very large chunk of the high turnover 435-person New Hampshire House of Representatives

However, unlike caretakers, a time-delayed presumption of notability or chamber-specific exclusions from NPOL as it is at present seem inadvisable on the grounds of inclusionism, Wikipedia as a work in progress, and not biting newcomers.

TLDR: Unless this is a rare situation like Leroy Ufkes who received coverage both outside of his metropolitan area and outside of the state-at-large for his two days in the Illinois House of Representatives, a caretaker legislator's article should not be preserved under NPOL.

Judges in the United States

The participants at WikiProject United States courts and judges have created a project page to provide guidance with respect to the notability of judges, courts, and courthouses in the United States. I think this page should be linked to in NPOL.

U.S. local officials

This portion of NPOL Thoughts is going to be very heavy on mentioning mayors when discussing a generic local official if only because I think we don't run into a lot of back and forth about people who sit on solid waste disposal districts.

Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they automatically not notable under NPOL. A particularly obvious case for a notable local officeholder not included under NPOL #1 as a position-specific presumption, but who is notable for service in local government, is Harvey Milk. This is an extreme example of obviousness. However, most notable local officeholders are not as obvious particularly when relying on NPOL #2 for major local political figures who have has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists or relying on the subsequent disclaimer that local officeholders can still be notable if they meet general notability guideline.

In part, I blame the carve-out for state legislators. This ends up reducing the pool of notable local officeholders by giving individuals who would be considered a notable local officeholders on their own a separate and explicit claim to notability that preempts discussion of their inclusion on Wikipedia as local officeholders. For example, I would argue that Jack T. Knuepfer and Abdullah Hammoud would be notable local politicians even if they had not served in their respective state's legislatures before being local officials.

Separately, there are also local politicians who clearly meet subject specific notability guideline unrelated to politics. Brandon Bochenski as a professional athlete or Paul Petersen as a criminal. However, sources related to their time in local government could be a noticeable chunk of their sourcing. Another example of a criminal, Rita Crundwell, was only able to qualify under WP:CRIME because she held office as the city treasurer of Dixon, Illinois and so there will be a lot of sourcing related to run of the mill happenings in local government. Glenn "Kane" Jacobs has an article for his time in the WWE even if Knox County Mayor would have a very good chance of qualifying under NPOL #2.

Who I Would Presume Notable

I do not believe it is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to rely on NPOL #2 and create a stand-alone article about a local official, upon them taking office, if they meet one of the below:

• Mayor of the largest 100 cities in the United States at the time said city is one of the 100 largest cities.
• Mayors of state capitals greater than 100,000 people if not included in the largest 100 cities in the United States at the time said state capital has more than 100,000.
• Mayors of cities in U.S. territories if the city has more than 100,000 people.
• County executives of the largest 50 counties in the United States. These officials can take the title of President, County executive, County judge, or County Board Chairman.
  • A "county board chairman/chairwoman" elected by their peers as a first among equals to preside over meetings or perform other ceremonial, pseudo-executive duties (signatory of passed ordinances) are not county executives, but depending on the size of the county I would weigh serving in such a role as an indicator of potential notability.
• I believe it is possible I may expand this into mayors of core cities of MSAs of a certain size.

Indicators of potential notability

None of these are considered guarantees of notability. They are simply things to consider in gauging if a local official is notable under NPOL #2 or GNG.

• An atypically long amount of time in office. There are some mayors notable near-exclusively for this (e.g. Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore). This is not to say everyone on this list is notable. I think Jeff Schielke of Batavia would have a stronger case for a stand-alone article than Noel Cummings of Hodgkins despite similarly long tenures.
• Significant coverage in publications that serve audiences outside of BOTH their metropolitan area and their state or territory (e.g. John Fetterman circa 2014 or Bushra Amiwala)
• Mentions in a peer reviewed publication for something they did while in local office (e.g. a new approach to zoning in which they played a major role being mentioned in an urban planning journal or a public health initiative being covered in a public health journal).
• Mentions in a university press published book for something they did while in local office (e.g. being featured in Post-suburbia : Government and Politics in the Edge Cities by Jon C. Teaford).
• A demographic-first in a state or territory. (e.g. Wilmot Collins as Montana's first Black mayor since statehood or Richard Heyman as the first gay man to serve as a mayor in Florida). This would be consistent with WP:POLOUTCOMES.
  • Depending on the sourcing and weight, I could see this being reasonably extended in some circumstances to established regions within a state (e.g. first of a demographic in Southern Illinois or the Florida Panhandle)
  • In some cases, a state capital or a regionally significant city could also apply (e.g. Lorraine H. Morton in Evanston)
• Mayors who serve as strong mayors versus mayors in a council-manager system. A mayor who has executive powers is going to have more opportunities for coverage than a mayor with limited legislative power or one with ceremonial functions.
• Mayors who have been appointed to statewide boards independent of being mayor.
  • Two mayors mentioned above, Hilmar Moore and Robert Butler, were on the Texas Welfare Board and a delegate to the Illinois Constitutional Convention respectively.
• Involvement in national organizations related to local government.
• Position of prominence at the national or state-level of a political party.
• Does the town have certain notable civic institutions such as a major university that increases the likliehood of coverage?

Not indicators of notability

Things I do not consider to be indicators of potential notability.

• Frequent mentions in media that serve their area. Articles about local politicians will have a substantial amount of the sourcing be from their home area. However, I do not believe WP:GNG is meant to give a mayor in McHenry County, Illinois notability if they have three mentions (itself a personal essay for AfD usage) in the Chicago Tribune or a mayor in McLean County, Illinois for three mentions in The Pantagraph given that GNG states sources from a single organization count as one source. Please be mindful that media markets cross state lines. A politician from Belleville, Illinois being written about in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is to be expected
  • To hammer that point. The New York Times has a local news section. An article with the NY Times URL does not make someone from Woodsburgh, New York any more notable than someone in Aberdeen, South Dakota appearing in the Aberdeen American News.
• Demographic firsts that consist of a very narrow demographic or a very narrow geography.
  • The first mayor of AAPI descent in California is more likely to be notable than the first Samoan American mayor in California or the first AAPI mayor in Alameda County
  • In 99% of circumstances, the first Black mayor of Cityville is not notable for being the first Black mayor if that area that regularly elects Black officeholders.
• Serving on a board which statutorally requires a mayor from their specific area or a handful of such officials.
• Position of prominence in a local political party (which I define as any sub-state such as a congressional district or county or other locality)
• Participation in regional organizations such as a metropolitan planning organization or organizations providing shared services to local governments

Candidates for Public Office

As far as candidates, NPOL states that being “an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.” Subsequently, everyone from well-meaning editors to consultants for the candidate hoping to get paid for writing a promotional page to consultants for the opposition hoping to lay the groundwork for an attack page, looks at that section in a vacuum, and says “see, Candidate X should have an article.”

Short answer: No. Long answer: See below.

Event Participants Don’t Inherently Get Articles

Under the most inclusionist worldview, candidates are participants in the event of an election. If this is the case, then contributors should refer to the criteria for subjects notable only for one event to determine if a candidate should or should not have a stand-alone BLP article. It advises against an article in such cases where:
1) Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2) The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.
3) The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.

Generally, sources for candidate articles cover people entirely in the context of a single event (an election). After an election is over, candidates almost always resume being low-profile individuals. While, #3 seems like it would get many candidates over the bar, it does not. A candidate’s role in an election is less substantial than one might think. People should ask themselves:

• Is this election a major event? A combination of polarization and gerrymandering has made many elections near foregone conclusions that themselves do not gett significant coverage? Do we really think that paper candidates running as Democrats in an R+23 district or running as Republicans in a D+44 district are notably simply for putting their name on the ballot?
• How would this election have been different if it was a generic Democrat, generic Republican, or generic unaffiliated candidate rather than the actual candidate?
  • Are those differences, if any, so great that the candidate themselves should have an individual, subject-specific article versus the relevant information in the article about the election (i.e. the event)?
• Did this person raise enough money that they ran a campaign that received any level of attention beyond hyperlocal coverage?
• Will anyone care about the participants in the election a decade from now?

You can see this with candidate articles that are kept. Amy McGrath and Christine O’Donnell had substantial roles in lighting $100 million on fire and losing Republicans a near guaranteed pick up that affected the partisan balance of the 112th Congress respectively. Their candidacies are still invoked in political discussions today (five and fifteen years later). Also worth noting that they also did not return to being low profile individuals after the election. Additionally, WP:SINGLEEVENT states that another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have separate articles on the person and the event.

Candidate Coverage Often Fails GNG

GNG excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Candidate announcements rely heavily on information provided by the political campaign. Do you really think that reporters covering announcements are calling up universities to confirm attendance before publishing a candidacy announcement noting that Candidate X attended Harvard? Remember, Rose Weldon of The Island Now in "Santos seeks to bring 'fresh perspective' to 3rd District" called then-candidate George Santos a financial professional in 2020 while Thomas Bolger of the Long Island Press, in "10 Candidates Running to Replace Suozzi in 3rd Congressional District" stated that Santos was an economist in 2022. As we would later learn when more outlets discovered local reporting done by the The North Shore Leader and the DCCC's treasure trove of public-facing opposition research he was not either of these things (AND MORE!). While Santos's casual relationship with the truth was unique in its boldness, it is indicative of how loosely the press vets candidates when they are simply announcing a campaign.

In some cases, the newspaper will outright publish the press release without indicating it as such. The Paragould Daily Press did just that with this press release. This release was well written enough to be mistaken for a candidate profile written by a journalist at the newspaper in the no consenus AfD for Arkansas Secretary of Transformation Joseph K. Wood. While Wood was also the county executive of one of the state's larger counties and thus a somewhat vetted individual, I believe this instance speaks to the problem of using candidate announcements published in newspapers to establish GNG.

What this amounts to is that most biographical information in articles comes straight from candidates, with minimal vetting, and cannot be used to establish . Without that information, you have X announces candidacy which borders on indiscriminate information.

Other policy issues

• Wikipedia is not the news. An biographical article about a candidate that is entirely from current events publications recounting current events violates this principle.
• A candidate article during an election violates WP:CRYSTAL. It presumes a candidate will be notable for their participation in the possibly major event of an election. This is particularly true of articles written immediately after a candidate’s announcement.
• WP:DIVERSE. A bunch of articles from the same handful of publications.
• WP:ROUTINE. Candidates run in almost every election.