Talk:Kara Eastman

Efforts to fix concerns that article reads like an advertisement

Which particular sentences are problematic? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I took too cursory a glance at the article. It is fine from an advertisement standpoint, so I just removed the tag. Notability remains doubtful. I will be nominating the article for deletion after the primary if she loses, and maybe even if she wins. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

For now, I will browse for sources that support general notability based on the points of WP:GNG. This election in particular has received quite a lot of national attention lately due to Nebraska's second congressional district being "purple" and thus highly contested. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue the election has received coverage, but the candidate not so much. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment as many (though not all) of the third-party secondary sources are focused on the election as a whole rather than just her candidacy; if Kara Eastman loses the primary, I'd say a merge into United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, 2018 wouldn't be a bad idea, but for now I'm lightly leaning in favor of the article, but my position may or may not change depending on how sources respond to the election results. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Given that she has now won according to unofficial results, I believe she definitely meets notability. She's been covered by national media outlets and the race has received close scrutiny. Ottoshade (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

No, WP:NPOLITICIAN is only for winning a general election, not a primary election. If she doesn't have enough coverage independent of the election she's in, she's not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Given that she is the CEO of the Omaha Healthy Kids Alliance, she has been covered in the media before outside of her 2018 run. Regardless, according to WP:N, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." So stuff like http://www.omaha.com/news/politics/five-key-differences-between-brad-ashford-and-kara-eastman/article_016f9638-9eec-5e50-8e2a-6d6eb7d2b912.html seems pretty in detail to me. But we'll find out if more media outlets cover her now that she's won. Ottoshade (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Coverage such as this will be more useful than anything that mentions the political race, and this bio includes some info such as where she attended college, which isn't in the article yet. There are some tone issues as well, "Eastman has pledged to run on a variety of progressive issues" isn't how the second sentence should begin. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Added the college info and Healthy Kids Alliance citation, thanks for calling attention to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottoshade (talk • contribs) 04:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I also don't see enough for notability right now. It will need either enough national (not just Omaha / political press) coverage, or coverage of whatever she did before becoming a candidate. Whether there is coverage of her victory should become clear in the next 48 hours. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they're going to do a recount or not. If so, it could change things up as far as coverage goes. We'll have to wait and see I suppose. Ottoshade (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Most of the sources I'm finding are from national outlets like the New York Times rather than just Omaha outlets, but we will have to look for the coverage that emerges from her victory. I agree with Power~enwiki; sources regarding her prior work in her non-profit are necessary to ensure that notability concerns are met, and tonal concerns should be addressed to improve the quality of the article. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 04:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep and now Vox just published an entire article just about her. She's definitely has enough notability, in my view. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/16/17359188/kara-eastman-nebraska-2nd-congressional-election-medicare-for-all Ottoshade (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A full article on the candidate rather than the election coming from a non-national and not strictly political outlet certainly further supports the argument that she has enough notability. Searching "Kara Eastman" now returns many an article from national outlets and non-Nebraska local outlets about her surprise victory, who she is, and what she stands for. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 13:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Still thinking I will nominate for AfD, but I will read that coverage more deeply before I do. Remember, this coverage now is not necessarily WP:LASTING. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

CNN now just wrote an article on her. The question of notability is all but off the table. https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/politics/kara-eastman-nebraska-democrats-trump-resistance/index.html Ottoshade (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not "off the table". The headline says it all: "Democrats' anti-Trump resistance", not Eastman. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That's definitely not a headline that mentions Eastman, but what about Who is Kara Eastman? First-time female candidate stuns Democratic establishment in Nebraska's primaries (Newsweek), Pro-Abortion Rights Progressive Wins Nebraska Democratic House Primary (Huffington Post), Medicare-For-All progressive woman wins surprise victory in key Nebraska house primary (Vox), and others? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 16:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Possibility of a recount

It appears Eastman has enough votes to avoid a recount (beyond 1% margin according to https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/nebraska/ne-statutes/nebraska_statutes_32-1119). Do you guys think it deserves a mention since the race technically hasn't been called yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottoshade (talk • contribs) 04:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The exceptional closeness of this race has already been featured in the headlines of articles regarding it, so I do think that we should mention Nebraska laws regarding recounts if Brad Ashford seeks a recount. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 04:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, it seems Eastman has definitely secured a win anyway. She's up 1.5% Ottoshade (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Date and place of birth?

Someone changed the date and place of birth in the infobox. What is the source for this information? Ottoshade (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

POV and WP:COATRACK

The article and also the header, citing one May 16th article,[1] claim that Eastman's victory "is part of a national movement toward progressive candidates." The source cited does not support that statement. Furthermore, this claim ignores other races such as VA governor race and several TX congressional Democratic runoffs on May 22 where Sanders-wing candidates were defeated.[2][3] Let's use this article to talk about Kara Eastman's career, positions, etc. rather than using it as a coatrack to promote a POV that her victory over a very flawed primary opponent predicts the future of US politics. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Some content not backed up by sourcing definitely got into this article. That's why I removed the Justice Democrats content awhile back. Your edits look accurate to me. I have WP:COI concerns about this page. I'm surprised it was kept at AFD as it goes against the typical WP:POLOUTCOMES. This page needs extra scrutiny due to the COI concerns. Marquardtika (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Recreation of article since only redirect to 2018 election page was found

@BrendonTheWizard:, @Ottoshade:,@Power~enwiki:, I have to apologize to editors who recommended deletion of an article (which I can't seem to find, if a record exists) about this candidate because I wrote an article as she has announced her candidacy for the seat she narrowly lost, in the 2020 election. I'll take a look at all the arguments for and against and weigh in here. All I could find was the redirect, that didn't indicate that an article had been deleted. She had first been elected to the Metropolitan Community College Board in 2014, and her race against an incumbent was notably close (2.0%) despite the candidate failing to get national party support, and for her having beaten, Brad Ashford, the previous incumbent in the primary, a candidate who had national backing, and who had served eight terms in the unicameral Nebraska legislature. Activist (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC) @Enos733:, @SportingFlyer talk:, @~EDDY:, @Lonehexagon:, @Deb:, Copying AFD editors who weighed in last year. I have to apologize to editors who recommended deletion of an article (which I can't seem to find, if a record exists) about this candidate because I wrote an article as she has announced her candidacy for the seat she narrowly lost, in the 2020 election. I'll take a look at all the arguments for and against and weigh in here. All I could find was the redirect, that didn't indicate that an article had been deleted. She had first been elected to the Metropolitan Community College Board in 2014, and her race against an incumbent was notably close (2.0%) despite the candidate failing to get national party support, and for her having beaten, Brad Ashford, the previous incumbent in the primary, a candidate who had national backing, and who had served eight terms in the unicameral Nebraska legislature. Activist (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're restoring the article. If she wasn't notable enough for this page to exist, this page would not have survived the May 2018 discussion. The discussion where it was decided to delete the page was far too speedy, and ignored the previous, much lengthier discussion which decided that the upset primary victory had already received enough attention from mainstream news outlets that the subject is notable enough. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Got a feeling that the second nomination should have been made known to people who'd been involved in the first one. But it seems to be sorted now. Deb (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)