Talk:Danny O'Connor (Ohio politician)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Danny O'Connor (politician) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Notability

We've been through this with a lot of political candidates for office. Just considering the nominees in special elections, they're not all notable for an independent article. Think of James Thompson in Kansas. Is this guy really notable? He doesn't meet WP:NPOL and doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG to me (most sources are about nationalizing this election, not about O'Connor). I didn't want to step in on this one before the special, but I think this should be a redirect as it is WP:TOOSOON at best. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I support redirecting this article to the election page, per the closer's note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny O'Connor (Ohio politician). The no consensus close was due to a split between deletion/redirect !votes. There's nothing here that's not WP:MILL coverage for any U.S. House candidate. Marquardtika (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the plurity voted to keep. I do not support a redirect.Casprings (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Promotional assertions of fact sourced to an opinion editorial

This article makes multiple promotional assertions of fact that are sourced to an endorsement opinion editorial. This violates WP:NEWSORG and WP:NPOV. You won't find such content at the pages of other political candidates, or it won't last for long. This page isn't a special flower. If the assertions of fact made in the op ed are accurate and noteworthy, they should be covered elsewhere in non-opinion sources. It's also not the usual practice to add laundry lists of endorsements at candidate pages; those belong at the election page. This page closed as "no consensus" at AFD and per the usual practice should then be tagged with a notability tag. This page, if it is going to exist, needs to be an encyclopedia article, not a campaign vehicle. If editors insist on continuing to defy policy here, the page should be taken to AFD again. Marquardtika (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• 1. I would remind of User:Marquardtika of Wikipedia:NNC. 2. If he wishes to take the article to wp:afd... however national coverage continues. At some point, this just looks silly. Casprings (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You're not addressing my concerns. Why do you think, in light of WP:NEWSORG, that it is ok to include promotional assertions of fact from an opinion editorial in this article? This is simply not the done thing here on Wikipedia. This article isn't a special exception. Marquardtika (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Because WP:N does not determine article content and that is Wikipedia policy. Unless we have reason to believe the facts reported are not true because the source is not WP:RS, they are okay to include. In other words, I think it is okay because that is Wikipedia policy.Casprings (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Our WP:RS policy includes the section WP:NEWSORG, which specifically states "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The content sourced to an opinion editorial goes directly against our reliable sourcing policy. I don't know how to be any more clear. I guess I'll take this to WP:RSN. Marquardtika (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The content does not go against policy. It is properly attributed to the newspaper. Carter2020 (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This is starting to look more and more like tendentious editing and edit-warring, and might need the uninvolved supervision by an administrator. Carter2020 (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Marquardtika One, it says rarely. We judge WP:RSes on standards based on on how accurate or reliable they are. These are basic facts about his life made by local media. Even if in an OP, local media is unlikely to get these facts wrong. Sources must be seen in context.Casprings (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Here from RSN. I looked over these sections, and Marquardtika is absolutely right. Most of the sources in the Career section are inadequate. Regardless of the reliability of the Columbus Dispatch as a newspaper, WP:NEWSORG says specifically that editorials are rarely reliable for statements of fact. The exceptions listed are when a notable expert on a topic rights an op-ed about their area of expertise. This is just a typical newspaper endorsement and we definitely shouldn't make an exception for it. The other questionable source is the Weis Law Group. A company's statement about its own employees is a primary source, and really shouldn't be used for content like this (essentially, puffery). If there are no reliable secondary sources discussing this material, then it should be removed. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

While we're at it, I'm also going to remove poorly sourced content from the endorsements section. The Tweet sourcing John Legend's apparent endorsement is not even to John Legend's verified Twitter account, and the only other source for any of the other endorsements is O'Connor's campaign website. We really need to avoid Wikipedia articles becoming secondary campaign websites/brochures. Marquardtika (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)