Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

"WT:BIO" redirects here. For WikiProject Biography, see WT:WPBIO. For WikiProject Biology, see WT:BIOLOGY.

2026 Congressional Candidates and issues with current Notability Guidelines

I know the discussion above will be referenced but I feel that there is a glaring problem with the current notability guidelines, that no one is addressing.

The current system HEAVILY favors incumbents in all congressional races, on both sides of the aisle, and not letting challengers play on the same playing field.

Take the house races in Pennsylvania 7th District and Texas's 34th District, both of these races are rated "Toss-ups" by Cook Political Report. The Pennsylvania race has an incumbent Republican and the Texas race has an incumbent Democrat. Neither one of these races have articles about the opposing candidate, as they don't meet the current notability guidelines. However... these races have ENORMOUS ramifications for control of the house, and therefore Congress, and therefore American government. Both of these challengers, (Bob Brooks and Eric Flores), have won their primaries, and have raised more than 1 million dollars.

These candidates are notable. But they don't fit within these guidelines.

Whether we intend to or not, people will go to Wikipedia to get information for elections, and when they see an article about the incumbent, that details their policy positions, their background, and their priorities, this is bias, and not having a counterbalance goes against WP:NPOV.

Now obviously I am not advocating for an article that has no substance and does not follow Wikipedia's current guidelines on notability with articles being neutral. The reason I bring up Brooks and Flores is that these two races will be decisive in deciding control of the House, and these two candidates have had significant coverage. They have enough credible, independent sources to create non-partisan articles about them.

However, this should come with limitations, and guidelines based on factors such as, magnitude of independent articles written about them, how competitive the race is, and how much money the candidates raised should all be judged as criteria in order to justify an article:

1. The article should strictly follow the rules on WP:NPOV. As well, they should be independent, cover the subject in depth, and should not portray a skewed perception of the candidate.

2. The candidate should have to be in a race that is at least rated likely by one of the political forecasters featured on Wikipedia election predictions section.

3. They should have INDEPENDETLY raised more than $500,000 for congress, and $2,000,000 for senate before an article is considered. This should be a restriction because this shows a campaign has momentum, and could actually make a difference in the midterms

4. The candidates should have already won their primary, as articles created for primary candidates would get too convoluted, and would be less substantial, as less press coverage on these candidates would have been done before then.

These guidelines prevent candidates like Yolanda Prince (D, TX-1) and Loran Ayles (R, OR-3) from having articles, as they are not notable, raised very little money, and are in safe seats. But this lets candidates like Rebecca Bennet (D, NJ-7), and Greg Cunningham (R, NM-2) have their own pages, since they fit these criteria, and are in competitive races. As well, it is frankly bizarre that there is no information for either candidate in the marquee (NE-2) race this year. Neither Denise Powell or Brinker Harding have their own pages! This district Kamala Harris only won by 3 and has a Republican congressmen.

And very importantly, if the candidate does not win, their page is swiftly deleted, as it is no longer needed on the platform, and is no longer useful to keep on the platform.

Now my suggestions are simply suggestions and I am very open to discussion on this, because maybe there is something I am not considering. I am also very open to hearing alterations to my proposed criteria for congressional candidates. But please note this suggestion is out of good faith and a genuine concern of the current system, and I mean no disrespect to anyone in bringing up this new opinion.

I just don't understand how a system which lets one candidate have an article detailing their lives, policy positions, and basically a biography, without having the other candidate be given the same opportunity is fair. And without change, the current system is politically biased in favor of the incumbent. MAWJ The Awesome (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a world-wide English-language encyclopedia, not a guide to American elections. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Well I think a guide would be incorrect, as guides normally have a bias. However, an encyclopedia should always be expanded, and for the reasons I have explained above, I don't believe what seems like an arbitrary rule to exclude candidates lets the encyclopedia fulfils its purpose to provide/include all relevant information about these elections. MAWJ The Awesome (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Incumbents have many advantages unrelated to Wikipedia, too. Wikipedia's inclusionary bias towards incumbents reflects the attention they receive as lawmakers. pburka (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Well that seems wrong, does it not? When there is a bias on Wikipedia, we should not accept it, we should try to reverse it if possible. Obvious it is the burden of the writers to create the article, but I don't see why we can't let them do it. Now, we cannot control the advantages incumbents have outside of the site obviously. However, these articles about the incumbents rarely ever focus solely on their achievements as lawmakers. They have sections on their early life, background, as well as information about their elections. Articles about lawmakers aren't solely focused on their lawmaking, but also their background. So I don't see why challengers can't have that as well MAWJ The Awesome (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Basically, the current system is not fair, and accepting bias is something I do not think is a positive precedent on this platform. MAWJ The Awesome (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects the biases present in the world. I understand that you're frustrated, but this proposal is very unlikely to get any traction. For one thing, your proposal to delete failed candidates after every election cycle fundamentally contradicts one of our core guidelines: WP:Notability is not temporary. If you want an election guide for American elections it already exists and is called Ballotpedia. pburka (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I am completely fine with not deleting the candidates in this proposal if that is what you are suggesting.

I don't agree with the idea that candidate pages would not be notable in the future. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and if something is important now, it is important to document for the future.

Think of candidates like Christine O Donell from Delaware, she never has won a race, but she was a prominent candidate 15 years ago, and deserves an article, given how significant she was at the time. Graham Platner is in the same vein, where his candidacy will be important to document and is notable (even if he doesn't win), even though his only notability has derived only from his Senate race.

On the flip side, I see politicians like James F. McNulty Jr. who was a democratic Congressmen who only served one term in Congress in the 1980's, and his page is primarily just about his election, and there is NOTHING, about his time in congress. Is he notable?

Or Frank Cremeans, another one term politician, whose electoral campaigns take up two thirds of his article, and literally has one source. Does that establish notoriety?

I honestly think they do establish notoriety, because they document history, and the encyclopedia that is Wikipedia served its job, to provide information and document history.

And to address your point about Ballotpedia, I think Ballotpedia is a great resource. It does not restrict how we can add and expand to Wikipedia, I don't really appreciate the idea that Wikipedia isn't a place where people can find information about the midterms. Wikipedia is already in the political fray, but it is one-sided, focusing on the incumbent only. Providing one-sided candidate information violates WP:NPOV, and is against what Wikipedia stands for. There really is only one solution for this. MAWJ The Awesome (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

If these contests are as notable as you claim, you may find it more fruitful to create pages about the elections, rather than biographies of the individual candidates. pburka (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Well there already are pages about the elections, and even if we created more specific ones, it still would not get rid of the built-in bias of one candidate having their own biography and achievements, and the other one not. I mean all of the socialist candidates are getting their own pages like DAC and Melat Kiros, I don't understand why these are any different. MAWJ The Awesome (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• This is a world-wide encyclopedia. Any guidelines must be encompasing for candidates in countries across the globe, not just the US. We do have pages about the election of candidates for federal office and verifiable information about the candidates can be added there. WP:CRYSTAL applies to predictions. And finally, many losing candidates are known only for their campaigns, and we have guidelines the protect people's privacy, especially of low-profile individuals (where having a Wikipedia entry is not always a good thing). --Enos733 (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  You bring up some good points, here are my thoughts:

  1. I agree that these guidelines can be implemented across the globe if people desire. I am an American and I worry how Wikipedia is influencing American elections, but others around the world could take these ideas and use them for other elections if they so desire.
  2. While there are some exceptions, most new/first-time candidates don't have pages, unless they had previous, public careers, (e.g. Bobby Pulido, Mark Teixeira, and Manny Rutinel). This is what I am worried about, because these candidates are HYPER important this cycle, and if one candidate in a race has a page detailing their achievements, and the other doesn't, that is against WP:NPOV. Of course there needs to be fair, independent sources that are used for these articles. If none are available, the article shouldn't be made.
  3. I don't think you quite understand my use of predictions. I am talking about the predictions currently available on pages like 2026 United States House of Representatives election ratings. However, if your suggestion is to get rid of this aspect of my proposed criteria, I would be open to that. The more I think about it, the limitation is kind of redundant and arbitrary.
  4. These candidates have not lost yet, and federal candidates are not low-profile. None of these articles would reveal private information obviously, as that would be doxxing. These candidates are bringing themselves into the public eye just by running, especially for Congress, obviously. While I respect that people might not want to have articles written about them, if they win their race and make it to Congress, they will end up having their own page anyways. Congressional candidates are running to be high-profile individuals, they should be treated that way.

  I do appreciate your info though, I am coming at this with good-faith, and worried genuinely about this system. If you anyone reading this has any suggestions I would greatly appreciate it.

  This needs to be fixed.

  Lets say New York's 4th comes down to 50 votes, and Laura Gillen wins. Wikipedia could have very well influenced this election, by having a page about the incumbent, detailing her background, and positive policy achievements, and documenting her time in Congress. Jeanine Driscoll (as the non-incumbent candidate) doesn't have this luxury, and in the interest of fairness, she should.

  You could replace these two candidates with numerous races this cycles and the pattern holds true. Wikipedia's current system influence elections. MAWJ The Awesome (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  We are not going to agree. I take offense to the idea that Wikipedia influences elections. I have serious doubts that large number of people have voted for or against a candidate because they have a standalone page. If readers want candidate information, that is what Ballotpedia is for. - Enos733 (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  First of all, I really don't mean to be offensive like I am bringing this up out of a genuine concern and worry about this feature of the website.

  Secondly, we don't definitively know if Wikipedia influences people, I understand why you might be skeptical. But think of it this way, If I was a casual voter in Pennsylvania 7th Congressional District, I would look up Pennsylvania elections 2026, and Wikipedia is one of the first things that pops up. I would find the Pennsylvania 7th election and see that Ryan Mackenzie has a Wiki page, so I would click on it. I would read it through and I would have a positive perception of him, as the article reads positively. His opponent Bob Brooks does not have a page, people would have to do more reading to find stuff about him, which is fine, and they should do obviously, but they already have a positive view of Mackenzie, and no view of Brooks from their initial search.

  Wikipedia is by far the most accessible website on the planet, it will sway voters whether intended to or not.

  Looking at pageview statics proves this point. in the month before the 2018 election for North Carolina's 9th Congressional District, Democrat Dan McCready, and Republican Mark Harris were in an election decided by 905 votes. Mark Harris's Wikipedia page got a whopping 17,989 votes between October 5th 2018, and November 5th 2018 (election day). Just 5% of the number of people who looked at his Wikipedia page decided the election. And while not all of the views were in the congressional district, I would think it is fair to say many likely were. This is an election that the forecasters rated as a tossup and Wikipedia could have very easily swayed.

  This is just one example of many that I found where Wikipedia could have swayed the election.

  And lastly, about Ballotpedia. I think Ballotpedia does do a good job at giving information to the voters, and detailing elections. But Ballotpedia is not as known or accessible on Wikipedia. If you go out onto the street and ask the first three passers-by if they know what Ballotpedia is, they are likely to say no. Just because Ballotpedia serves a specific purpose, doesn't affect Wikipedia. Wikipedia really should let candidate pages exist, and for the reasons and evidence i have presented, I feel it irresponsible to reject them. MAWJ The Awesome (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Enos733 (talk · contribs) here. Wikipedia is not suppose to influence world affairs or politics, see WP:NOTADVOCATE.

That said WP:POLOUTCOMES exists.

If one wants to create a specific WP:SNG, break a leg. There is actually more likely a chance for a proposal to fail than succeed as some past SNGs have been retired. One can also attempt to write an essay to persuade for expanding WP:POLITICIAN.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:26, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Great! @User:RightCowLeftCoast Is this how a change would occur? Like is writing the essay and it succeeding how this would be allowed on Wikipedia? MAWJ The Awesome (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Just because someone writes an essay, doesn't mean others will buy into it. But it's a start. See WP:CCC. --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

What we define as "statewide office"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all, the following is a transcription from the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Call (politician):

On WP:NPOL, Call has never held office, or been a member of a legislative body at that level. Coverage is mostly trivial (hired, elected, re-elected, election ongoing), but you could make the case for embezzlement articles meeting notability. In general (excluding that), coverage is trivial or not independent of the subject. Ighs (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems like half the time Wikipedia editors expect every article subject to be an A-list celebrity; people necessarily exist in their context. He was the statewide chair of one of only two major parties in the United States. NPOL doesn't actually explicitly say "government" office, it just says "statewide office". Nonetheless, one line down from the one you referenced would indicate that he's a "[major] local political [figure] who ha[s] received significant press coverage". Were you hoping for an expose on the layout of his garden? You only need 2 sources to satisfy NPOV [sic. (establish notability)]. Even without "mak[ing] the case for embezzlement meeting notability", that's still been well and over satisfied. CSGinger14 (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Ignoring the second half of my argument for the purposes of this discussion, should leadership of a major political party at the state subnational level be considered a legitimate qualifier for NPOL alongside political appointments / government positions? CSGinger14 (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait for the AfD to end before determining if there's a problem here. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

​There seems to be at least a rough consensus there that that article satisfies NPOL, or at least GNG, given that he's a major local political figure who has received significant press coverage, as noted in the second half of my argument above, so ultimately this discussion wouldn't have any impact on it regardless. It's more an example of a case than any real attempt to back up or get back up for my argument there.

CSGinger14 (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

No. For a couple reasons. 1) Lately our community has not wanted to expand SNGs to presume notability for more positions/jobs/titles. 2) I don't think it is certain that there is significant, in-depth coverage of all current Republican and Democratic party chairs of the state and territories. Even if so, we would need to figure out a definition of what is a "major political party" throughout American history (is the leader of the Republican Party in Virginia in 1856, or the leader of the Socialist Party in Oregon in 1912, or the chair of the Democratic Party in Wyoming in 2026 notable). From there we presumably would want to see to what degree the concept (subnational major party leader) fits, as this is an international project and we don't generally want country-specific policies. - Enos733 (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it's abundantly clear from the context that "office" means "political office", i.e. a position of authority within a government. Simply holding a job at an organization isn't what's intended, even if that organization is political in nature. pburka (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Correct. I think a state party chair is likely to be notable, but they very clearly don't fit into NPOL. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

We have Category:State political party chairs of the United States and subcats for all 50 states. We constantly tell people that membership in such a category constitutes "a defining characteristic of notability". So what does that really mean? The position is a defining characteristic of notability, while in practice it's really a pile-on category for people deemed notable for other reasons? It seems some just want to have their cake and eat it too, all the while not being serious about the logical expansion of "the sum total of all human knowledge". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:DEFINING has nothing to do with notability: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place." voorts (talk/contributions) 00:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. The existence of some notable Railway station cats doesn't imply that all cats at railway stations are notable. pburka (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

​​I think we can all agree though, as much as we might wish it were the opposite, that there's a lot more scholarly / reporting weight behind the typical state party chair than the average cat in a train station. And we're all equally dismayed to acknowledge that the former ultimately plays a bigger role in our lives as well. In nearly all cases, regardless of the reporting that might exist on the individual, there's a good chance that they're a major influence in shaping the policy priorities of officials in government, notwithstanding choosing the candidates that even make it to a primary or manage to survive it for at least some portion of the state's residents. That's even more so the case abroad (particularly in Europe, where many party leaders (even at the regional level) and their allies actively play a role in the makeup of their respective governments/parliaments, or personally decide the candidates who make it forward in any one particular election. It's not active governance, but it's basically half the procedure.

CSGinger14 (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I think a state party chair is likely to be notable, but they very clearly don't fit into NPOL. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:34, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts My above comment explains why I think that it specifically falls into NPOL. I don't think your earlier commentary addresses the points I've made.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) CSGinger14 (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The consensus is that NPOL covers politicians holding public offices, not officers of political parties. I've boldly added the word "public" before "office" to clarify that. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts We're in a discussion deciding the consensus on NPOL, that's not a reasonable explanation. WP:CONSENSUS isn't decided by vote, it's determined by the weight of arguments presented. The consensus is is not a valid response if we presume that this is the place where that consensus would be made. As pointed out in the previously linked article, Do not boldly state that there is already a "global consensus" on something without referring to both the discussion and why you believe it carries more weight than something else.. You need to provide some reasonable explanation as to why this is the global consensus, which you haven't satisfied.

CSGinger14 (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

You've explained why you think they should be considered notable. You have not explained why you think the existing NPOL guideline applies to them, when the wording clearly doesn't include them. pburka (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pburka I did, you just didn't read it:

...regardless of the reporting that might exist on the individual, there's a good chance that they're a major influence in shaping the policy priorities of officials in government, notwithstanding choosing the candidates that even make it to a primary or manage to survive it for at least some portion of the state's residents. That's even more so the case abroad (particularly in Europe, where many party leaders (even at the regional level) and their allies actively play a role in the makeup of their respective governments/parliaments, or personally decide the candidates who make it forward in any one particular election. It's not active governance, but it's basically half the procedure.

CSGinger14 (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, you're arguing that they're often notable. You might be right. But the current NPOL guideline clearly doesn't include party officials. What part of the wording makes you think it does? pburka (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

​Statewide official, for one, but that's also not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that they play a substantial role in the crafting and execution of political strategy for governments at various levels, which is being massively downplayed for its role in shaping peoples lives in the way that makes being a government official important, consequential, and WP:Notable in the first place. That's what qualifies them for WP:NPOL.

I don't see how people seem to be missing that here, or glossing over that argument; maybe I'm missing something but it feels like you're massively downplaying their importance without any real backup to support your argument beyond what you assume to be previous consensus. Do you actually know what the discussion was that decided that consensus? Would sources backing this up sway you in any way? Can you explain why you're resistant to the fact that consensus can change?

CSGinger14 (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pburka Also, you once again haven't actually explained why it is that you think the wording doesn't include them. The only reason why the language looks the way it does now is because @Voorts changed it, which they really shouldn't have done before discussion closed regardless--will plan to revert after posting this. In any case, you've provided no grounds for your assumption that it shouldn't include political candidates.

Put simply, since we're clearly fans of Occam here, you have provided no past discussions (i.e where that consensus would have been formed) or policy to actually support your claim of what deliberate consensus here is (other than your own interpretation of the language) so your argument has no real weight behind it.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The paragraph starts with the qualifier "Politicians and judges..." and later says "elected to such offices" and "political offices" (see footnote). This clearly doesn't include party officials, consultants, lobbyists, or other "officers" who don't directly wield government power: they aren't politicians, even if they influence politics. I don't see how this section, taken as a whole, could be interpreted as referring to anything other than "public offices". pburka (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

No, we're in a discussion where everyone else has told you the guideline doesn't mean what you think it means. If you have an argument for expanding the guideline, make it. Otherwise, you're just wikilawyering. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

(Frankly, I wish someone had said this to me when I first started getting involved in PAG discussions.) voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty inane response to call accurate and qualifiable analysis of guidelines (I might note in response to what basically amounts to "because we (meaning you and a thus-unidentified army of consensus builders that you've failed to reference) said so") wikilawyering. You don't automatically have grounds to dismiss because previous discussion apparently said something that you can't even seem to definitively prove.

The fact that you're not willing to even put in the time to engage with my core points is why you see what I'm doing as wikilawyering in the first place, cause you can't be bothered to actually deliberate on the merits of the guidelines in favor of simply deferring to past judgement, the contents of which you've thus far shown no actual understanding or knowledge of.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

​Also, I have told you now twice that that's the argument I'm making for why they should be included in NPOL, and you haven't made any real response to it other than "that's not what the guideline says". I'd really appreciate if you'd actually engage on the merits of the points I bring to discussion. I'm not asking you to write a book, but I'm quoting directly 4 of your past 8 responses, and am asking specific questions that I am asking you to answer in good faith that you actually want to engage with this discussion beyond simply dismissing it without cause. Please answer them:

• ...I think a state party chair is likely to be notable, but they very clearly don't fit into NPOL (Repeated once)

• Why?

• The consensus is that NPOL covers politicians holding public offices, not officers of political parties...

• Can you point to when discussion made that distinction clear, beyond simply interpreting the guidelines as being what you see as 'obvious' (which, I should note, is basically the same thing you claim is wikilawyering when I do it)?

• No, we're in a discussion where everyone else has told you the guideline doesn't mean what you think it means. If you have an argument for expanding the guideline, make it. Otherwise, you're just wikilawyering.

• I did, by the way; this actually was your response to me attempting to do so, and you just didn't listen. Why have you not provided any response to that addressing the actual points I raised about how state party officials directly impact peoples' lives in the same way as government officials?

• The problem is that NPOL is used to establish conclusive notability. I don't think we need to start adding to our list of bios that automatically get an article.

• Would a major state party official not receive press coverage at least detailing their win for the office, if not their strategy thereafter, or their relationship with government officials? Is that not effectively the same as the qualification we use for government officials? Why do we necessarily expect that it would cause any more serious a problem, seeing as it's already covered by WP:CONTOP and patrolled by many long-time active editors such as yourself, who I doubt would be slowed in their mission by something such as this. We haven't seen an explosion in abuse from anything else of similar note, why do you expect that to happen here? Why should we put unnecessary restrictions in place ahead of time for something that you yourself know is already being heavily patrolled for, literally by you yourself and others like you, that you know have already been rather successful in their mission?

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand your argument. Wikipedia guidelines are not written to be parsed like a statute. See WP:RAP and my short essay. I have closed and participated in many AfDs and I've written several articles about sub-national politicians. Nobody as far as I know has ever interpreted NPOL's presumptive notability to extend to state party chairs and there is no consensus that those individuals fit within NPOL. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm all for whatever wording is needed to make being statewide chair of a major political party a presumptive indication of notability. I would define a "major political party" for this purpose as a party that typically holds at least one third of the seats in the state legislature. BD2412 T 13:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that NPOL is used to establish conclusive notability. I don't think we need to start adding to our list of bios that automatically get an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree - and I think broadly the community is moving away from presumptions of notability. While I think many national and subnational party chairs are notable based on GNG, I do not think the presumption that GNG is met extends to all party chairs (both within the United States and internationally). And in any event, I would oppose any addition to our SNGs that put additional conditions on role (e.g. presumption of notability exists for party chairs where the "party typically holds at least one third of the seats in the state legislature.") - Enos733 (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@CSGinger14: I'm not going to respond to you point by point. If you want NPOL to cover state party chairs, you'll need to open an RfC. Do you want to do that? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:26, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Think that's gonna have to be the case at this point then

CSGinger14 (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Fine, I'll start one. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:31, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

RFC: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: NPOL & sub-national leaders of major political parties. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarifying an ambiguity in how we define "statewide office"

In reading WP:NPOL, there's a small ambiguity with respect to what is meant by "statewide office." The ambiguity applies in a potentially narrow set of circumstances, but would require only a small clarification to the standard, so I wanted to raise it for discussion before initiating an RfC. Per the standard and common outcomes, I understand that NPOL provides a presumption of notability for those who have been elected to statewide office (or who serve in an otherwise elected statewide office, like Darline Graham, if appointed to it) or a state-level legislative body. (Simplified in the context of elected officials specifically.)

But what of someone who is elected from a district to a multi-member statewide body that is not the state legislature? I'm thinking here of elected bodies like public service commissions, state boards of education, or executive councils, where the members are elected by district, and exercise power on a body with statewide authority. (To be clear, these bodies certainly can be appointed, but I'm specifically referring to elected entities here.) These officeholders will often independently satisfy general notability, but while I personally read NPOL as saying that they presumptively qualify, I'll concede it's possible to read it in such a way that they don't qualify. I don't see much guidance in the common outcomes, either.

Personally, I would say yes, they qualify, because they have been elected to a statewide public office, as the standard requires. Alternatively, the guidance at WP:NSUBPOL could suggest no, because not all of these entities literally make laws; they are usually (but not always) regulatory bodies. But NSUBPOL frames this caveat narrowly: This is in contrast to bodies, such as municipal councils, whose power is limited to administrative, supervisory or regulatory functions. The entities I'm talking about aren't municipal; they're statewide entities, and that context seems significant. Moreover, the modern administrative state is complicated, especially in the states, where some of these entities have constitutionally delegated powers with which legislatures cannot always interfere.

Additionally, there are some instances where a statewide body (e.g., the Montana Public Service Commission and the Nebraska Public Service Commission) is presently elected by district, but was previously elected statewide. A plain reading of NPOL would suggest that those who were elected statewide in past years are presumptively notable, but it's unclear if those elected by district would be, which produces an odd bifurcation. Given that footnote 13 clarifies that this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete, it would make sense to include them.

There aren't a ton of these bodies nationwide, so this is not opening the floodgates to a thousands of new article creations. By my count, there are 4 public utility commissions elected by district (LA, MS, MT, NE), 10 state boards of education elected by district (AL, CO, KS, LA, NE, NM, NV, OH, TX, UT); 2 boards of regents elected by district (CO and NV); 2 executive councils elected by district (MA and NH), and the California Board of Equalization and Mississippi Transportation Commission. It's possible I'm missing one or two current entities, and there have been a few more historically, but regardless, the population size here is not substantial.

This is also not an abstract consideration; it was at issue in the proposed deletion of a Nebraska Public Service Commissioner earlier this year, which made me realize that the standard has been, or could be, interpreted differently. Following that deletion discussion, I stopped drafting pages like that one because I wanted to seek consensus before proceeding on an ad hoc basis.

I thought a discussion here before initiating an RfC would be better than jumping straight to that, but please forgive if this is not the appropriate way to initiate this discussion. While I'm not new to Wikipedia, I'm much newer to participation in questions related to policy. PA Uploader (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

No, I don't think membership in a commission constitutes a "public office". I also don't think it makes any difference whether members are appointed, elected, or selected by lottery. pburka (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that anything in WP:NPOL suggests that commissions themselves aren't a "public office." There's no suggestion or necessary implication there that "office" refers to someone who singularly exercises a certain type of authority, and in fact, the inclusion of judges -- many of whom sit on panels together and collaboratively exercise power -- suggests that there's no such limitation. Moreover, to briefly consider common practice, most appointees to U.S. federal commissions or boards seem to have pages, and elected members of U.S. state entities like the Railroad Commission of Texas seem to have them, too. It feels like it's drawing a distinction without a difference for the elected state superintendent of schools to qualify (as I assume they would, and as many appointed superintendents have), but not an elected state board of education. PA Uploader (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

There's no ambiguity in NPOL, as should be clear from the discussion above and the RFC at VPP. NPOL is limited to legislative, executive, and judicial officers, not members of state commissions. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:RAP. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, members of these state commissions are almost always executive officers, which is why I am asking. PA Uploader (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Executive officers as in heads of cabinet departments. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but that is what I mean. Just to provide one specific example, the Louisiana Constitution limits the number of executive departments to twenty. Separately, it creates the Public Service Commission -- an entity elected by district -- as a constitutional office within the executive branch. By state law, the legislature has created the Department of Public Service as one of those twenty departments, and the Public Service Commission is "the executive head of the department[.]" PA Uploader (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

If you want NPOL to cover members of state commissions, then you will need to seek consensus for it. As you can see from the very swift snow close two days ago of the RfC, I doubt that you will get consensus for that change. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, the guidance at WP:NSUBPOL could suggest no, because not all of these entities literally make laws; they are usually (but not always) regulatory bodies. But NSUBPOL frames this caveat narrowly: This is in contrast to bodies, such as municipal councils, whose power is limited to administrative, supervisory or regulatory functions. The entities I'm talking about aren't municipal; they're statewide entities, and that context seems significant.

From what I understand here, "municipal councils" are meant to be an illustrative example, rather than a criterion for the caveat, while the main criterion is the limitation on power (regardless of the geographical level). Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I totally understand that it's just an example, and I 1000% promise I'm trying not to be overly literal.

But I really don't think that the standard is being applied based on the limitation of power in practice. Most state-level executive officials in the U.S. outside of the governor and lieutenant governor, whether formally identified as cabinet officials or otherwise, are, at their core, regulators and administrators who are empowered by constitutions and statutes, but simultaneously limited by them. To some extent, it almost seems like assumptions about separation of powers that exist in the U.S. federal government are being applied to the states, but the systems are radically different. Within their state system of government, an elected state superintendent of instruction (almost always a constitutional office) will almost always have more institutional independence than the U.S. Secretary of Education, who can be fired at will by the President. The same is true of many state boards of education, which often have constitutional authority (especially if they're elected), unlike almost any U.S. federal officer.

If we would agree that, say, the statewide elected Superintendent of Instruction in Wisconsin is an office that qualifies, then I don't see a material difference between that and a state-level elected Board of Education, regardless of whether the members are elected statewide or by district.

And we clearly recognize offices like the Wisconsin Superintendent of Schools as meeting WP:NPOL, even if there's no formal guidance saying so. With extremely few exceptions, almost every current statewide officer, from the Arizona State Mine Inspector to the Wyoming Secretary of State, and their predecessors in the last few decades, has a page. If someone were to nominate the current Alabama Commissioner of Agriculture for deletion, I trust that it would be kept, regardless of whether he has received significant coverage, because we'd recognize it as a "statewide public office," even though the commissioner's power is inherently limited because's it's a regulatory office.

Moreover, per the discussion above, if the criteria is being a cabinet official, then that distinction also wouldn't matter in most states, where these boards are the cabinet officials. I don't see how "statewide public office" can be read in such a way that would include, say, the gubernatorially appointed commissioner of the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, but exclude the elected members of the constitutionally Louisiana Public Service Commission, which is the statutorily head of the Louisiana Department of Public Service. PA Uploader (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

NPOL applies globally. Any change to the scope of NPOL needs to account for the variety of political structures across nations. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:15, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I am not proposing a change to NPOL. I am asking whether officials who hold an elected, constitutionally established statewide office fit into the NPOL language, given that the plain text, state/province-wide public office, would suggest that they do. The text of NPOL expressly draws a distinction between someone holding a state/province-wide public office and being an elected local official. The entities and officials I'm discussing fall into the former category, and not the latter. Likewise, they don't fall into any other excluded category. That would also be consistent with WP:POLOUTCOMES, which advises that [e]lected and appointed political figures . . . at the major sub-national level qualify.

If the entities I'm discussing don't qualify, I'm asking why they don't, given the plain text of the standard and pretty much every available piece of guidance. The answer you provided in the previous thread, that they are not "executive officers" or "heads of cabinet departments," does not apply in the overwhelming majority of the cases I'm talking about.

I am not trying to be difficult or rude, and I genuinely hope I am not coming off that way. I am also not trying to be overly literal. You advised that I read WP:RAP. I'm an attorney, and I'm quite familiar with the concept that rules are principles to be applied, not complete definitions that can or should account for all possibilities. What I am saying is that the relevant standard here straightforwardly applies in the situations I am describing. PA Uploader (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm a lawyer as well. You need to turn off your lawyer brain when reading PAGs. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps some clarification could help, since various editors have read this guideline to be quite inclusive. I think we mostly agree that, for politicians, "statewide public office" includes cabinet-level positions (and legislators are also explicitly included in the guideline). Are there other sub-national offices which are also uncontroversially presumptively notable? pburka (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pburka I think I would slightly refine what you've said to say "elected or major cabinet-level positions or their functional equivalents" (because I'm not sure that a bog standard state secretary of economic development would be presumptively notable, and nor would I say that an office needs to be under the direct supervision of an executive to be notable) and say "people holding an elected statewide office." I'm not sure I would want to be more specific than that. But I understand the language in the standard to expressly encompass all of what I've said, too, so I don't know that I would even propose tweaking the language at all. If anything, I think that my understanding could be narrower in some ways, given that I don't think that holding any cabinet position makes someone presumptively notable. PA Uploader (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The focus on elected positions seems to be a uniquely American fascination. Most countries don't vote for nearly as many minor offices as we do in America (while at the same time having unelected cabinets!). I think that giving any special status to elected positions doesn't make sense from a global perspective, and risks creating an even greater bias toward American topics. pburka (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I totally understand that, I definitely don't want to exacerbate bias. Indeed, many U.S. state governments, as you note, have elections for many positions that aren't elected in other countries at all. In establishing that reality, it seems very likely that there's a relationship between that decision and notability. That is, an official being elected to a state position is likelier to have a presumption of notability than an official who wasn't, e.g., an elected state treasurer is far likelier to be notable than an appointed state treasurer. I don't think election is (or should be) the extent of the calculus, but it feels like an important part of it for subnational officials in the United States. It's also a standard that would clearly suggest when (or not) an article qualifies in a context where it may not often be self-obvious. PA Uploader (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand this logic. If we presume that treasurers / comptrollers / ministers of finance are notable, it means that their positions are important enough that there will almost always be coverage of them. The only reason I can imagine to apply this only to elected positions is because the candidates will seek out press coverage during their campaigns. But there's a longstanding (albeit frequently disputed) consensus that we don't count routine campaign news towards notability. pburka (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Per the other thread on this talk, if the question is about powers, and therefore a functionalist inquiry, then I don't know that we can ever assume that certain positions are notable. Is the typical treasurer/comptroller/minister of finance important enough of a position that they would have sufficient coverage that they'd be notable? Yes, I would agree. But what about a treasurer like Wisconsin's, which has been reduced to a basically powerless position? Do we say that all treasurers are notable except that one? Do we draw lines as to which of those offices has enough powers to qualify as a "treasurer" as we understand it? Or do we say that the functional equivalent in that state is the Secretary of Revenue, because that's the person who holds those responsibilities? If we say that a "treasurer" is notable, then we have to know what a "treasurer" is. I don't see a way for this to be a functionalist inquiry that isn't also extremely inaccessible and highly contested. Including "was the person elected to a state-level office" in the calculus helps simplify the inquiry in many contexts and draw clear lines, while simultaneously preserving what the inquiry is actually trying to accomplish. PA Uploader (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

An alternate approach would be to eliminate the "public office" clause completely and restrict subnational presumptive notability to legislators, heads (governors) and deputy heads. pburka (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hyphenation

@Davidwbaker has undone my edit trying to get consistency in how we formatted the same compound (state/province–wide in one place and state/province-wide a few lines below), citing MOS:HYPHEN. I'm not sure if this applies here, as state/province is comprised of several individual words. I had in mind MOS:SUFFIXDASH, but this seems to only apply to compounds with a space, hyphen, or dash, rather than a slash. Still, the current formatting is now inconsistent from a line to the next, even if I'll admit we shouldn't exhaust a lot of discussion in fixing this. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I failed to notice you were editing for consistency. I should have changed both or come here for discussion.

I do think it's clear that a hyphen is appropriate, as it is punctuation being used to link the suffix "wide". (Item #2 of MOS:HYPHEN.) It also doesn't fit any of the general cases where en dash and em dash apply, per MOS:DASH. MOS:SUFFIXDASH provides an exception to the general rule of using a dash to link a suffix, but – as you point out – the conditions for the exception aren't present. "state/province" doesn't contain a space, hyphen, or dash. Davidwbaker (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the clarification, I should've made it clear in my edit summary! I'll change it so both use a hyphen. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 19:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)