Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazi Melesa Pilip

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

Mazi Melesa Pilip

The result was WP:SNOW keep. No support for deletion or redirection, except one !vote citing no evidence other than "per nomination." I had not seen Tbrechner's message, and had not noticed that WP:SNOW requires unanimity. I will be more careful in the future. (non-admin closure)‎ Luke10.27 (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Mazi Melesa Pilip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a local level officeholder, Pilip does not meet, or not meet, GNG or NPOL. However, the kinds of ways that one can meet GNG or NPOL as a local politician are not present here (e.g. longevity). As a candidate, it is too early to see if her candidacy meets NPOL based on its historic importance. Her military career does not meet GNG for military officers (e.g. flag officer or an IDF Medal of Honor-equivalent) Mpen320 (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep With her background, Ms. Pilip is certainly a person of note in the political world, including that she has just been tapped to run for the Congressional seat vacated by former Congressman George Santos. This on the same day that Mpen320 has written this request for deletion. Cecropia (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Yes, I wrote this after that announcement and would note that being a congressional candidate does not meet NPOL or GNG in of itself.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Pilip fails to meet WP:NPOL as a local non-major politician who has held office for not even two years. She has, however, received recent press coverage (Politico([4]), CNN([5]), Newsday([6]) as she has been nominated by the NY Republican Party to be their candidate in the NY-3 special election. The focus of these articles is not Melesa Pilip herself but is instead her relation to the NY-3 special election to replace former Congressman George Santos. Therefore, in this case, she does not have significant coverage; the election has significant coverage. The non-recent significant coverage cited by Curbon7 is valid, but I would argue that WP:BLP1E applies. As a result, she fails to meet WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Melesa Pilip should be redirected to the 2024 New York's 3rd congressional district special election page, which is now a heavily-related article to Melesa Pilip due to her recent nomination as the Republican candidate.Tbrechner (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She just received the party nomination for the open congressional seat in New York, which has received extensive national coverage. The race will be hotly contested and widely covered in the media as well. This should end this AfD discussion. It’s now obvious that this is a “Keep.” Go4thProsper (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: So far, the race and Melesa Pilip's nomination for the Republican ballot line in such race have received national coverage, but Melesa Pilip herself has not received unrelated national coverage outside of the past coverage cited by Curbon7, which meets the criteria of BLP1E as coverage solely about Melesa Pilip is in the context of her local election position; Melesa Pilip is currently a low-profile individual and is likely to continue to be if she loses the special election; and her previous national coverage is not substantial. Therefore, she fails to meet both Wikipedia:SIGCOV and Wikipedia:GNG. If you think she meets the general notability guidelines, please specify how because, currently, she does not seem to meet them. Tbrechner (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I agree with Go4thProsper that this article should be kept. Mazi Melesa Pilip was elected to New York State's Nassau County Legislature representing Nassau County, Long Island's 10th district. This fact alone is notable and of interest to New Yorkers. Other county legislators for New York are in many articles on Wikipedia. If this article should be deleted then the other ones should too. I think that all articles identifying NYS County Legislators must be kept. You can't selectively keep some and not others. KhrisKerr (talk) 07:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Redirect to special election page per nomination. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Seems like enough material for a biography. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Curbon7, I believe she meets WP:GNG. The Forward in 2021 and this, as well as more recent coverage: NYT here for example. --Deansfa (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With due respect, if routine coverage from ethnic media of a local election (like The Forward's coverage) met the standard for notability, we'd have articles on many local politicians but we don't because that doesn't meet the standard of notability. What you refer to as "this" is a piece written by a public relations professional that refers to the Nassau County Legislature as the NY Legislature. The NYT coverage is coverage of the 2024 New York's 3rd congressional district special election which is where she should be covered until if and when she wins. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    it's always the same issue. we make some rules with very clear wording: "addresses the topic directly and in detail", "significant coverage in reliable sources", "sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability". All of those very clear expressions are met with The Forward, The New York Times and others (I could have provided 10 more "addresses the topic directly" articles in NYT-like sources). but there's always someone who wants to add a "yes but". I looked if "routine news" coverage and "ethnic media" (sic) was a disqualifier, "routine news" is mentionned in the case of events, not people. "ethnic media" seems to be totally fabricated. --Deansfa (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dcpoliticaljunkie - your "coverage from ethnic media" disparagement of an RS is somewhat troubling. First, it is false to characterize her coverage as such - as you can see (if you do a wp:before type search), her coverage is broad nationally in the highest circulation publications in the US, and even extends to overseas. Second, you simply fabricate a rule of exclusion, that appears nowhere in WP rules. Third, while I am of course certain it is not what you meant, it does come across as statement that is perhaps just slightly repugnant. What's next? Delete all references from Black and Catholic and Armenian publications, or say that they do not count towards notability? Unsettling that your comment would be starting down this road.--2603:7000:2101:AA00:C4F:ED3C:CF8B:3CBB (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Curbon7 and Deansfa.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep on election outcome. For now: I believe that Pilip is unusually well-covered for a minor politician, enough so to meet the WP:POLITICIAN guideline. Notability would be solidified by being elected, because a person elected to US Congress is inherently notable for that reason. In the other case, from a future observer’s POV, a local politician with very brief national coverage who once ran for federal office and lost doesn’t really warrant an article (assuming there was nothing further of note). I agree with the “rising star” postulation per Hila Livne and Drsruli. It seems best in line with WP:CRYSTALBALL that we presume Pilip meets the notability threshold. We can’t just predict that Pilip will have been a “flash in the pan”. 2600:1700:FD0:E200:18FD:AC48:5F48:27A8 (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, her background is inspiring and her political career is on the rise Hila Livne (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC) * *[reply]
Reply: Respectfully, being inspiring and running for Congress does not alone meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. I appreciate your contribution, but please edit your contribution to be more specific. Tbrechner (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I do not see how being nominated in a special election alone makes her article more in compliance with Wikipedia's standards for notability, and, respectfully, "[h]er star is rising" is not a valid justification for keeping this article. Tbrechner (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last dozen !votes since refs have been added have all been unanimously some version of Keep. Snow closes are for situations like this, to save community time. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:4CBD:1DE:AA9E:9313 (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as just passing WP:GNG, largely for the article in The Forward - as the current coverage of her previous campaigns and policies as an elected official show that WP:BLP1E does not apply. In general candidates for the US Congress should be redirected to the page about the election, but each subject should be evaluated to see if they would pass GNG prior to their candidacy (or the coverage is well beyond that of the average candidate, such as internationalized coverage). As it stands, the subject does not pass WP:NPOL as the only metric for a clear pass of the SNG is holding a national or statewide elected position. Receiving a party nomination is not in and of itself a reason to keep an article, nor is anyone entitled to a Wikipedia stand-alone page. (I have general thoughts here).--Enos733 (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the essay-in-progress you linked. After quite the rabbit hole of reviewing candidate AfD outcomes, I'm withdrawing my redirect vote. I think filling out the essay a bit more and getting it included as a guideline in WP:AmPol would be quite useful. The Theresa Greenfield and Eliot Cutler examples are particularly insightful. Seems there's some precedent for keeping candidate articles if they've gotten enough coverage (a position that I actually prefer). Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:26, 20 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mazi_Melesa_Pilip&oldid=1191309424"