Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Zablocki (2nd nomination)

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.

The result was keep. kur ykh 07:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Zablocki[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was previously deleted for lack of notability. Has this person become more notable since 2009? It does not seem so. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E applies here, I think. There are also serious POV issues; note that nowhere in the article does it say he lost the election, or otherwise list any results of the election. That (along with some of the language choice) tells me this was written by a supporter. Powers ^T 15:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems plenty of coverage, and judging form the comments in the first AFD, significantly more cited coverage than there was when it was previously deleted. (the previous AFD included the comment "There are five news pieces about him" -- the curent article has at least 18 news story cites) The talk page comment "He was the first Republican to run for the seat since 1997, the first Staten Island resident since the 1960's to run citywide and the youngest candidate ever to run for citywide office in NYC" assuming it is supported by WP:RS, also seems to contribute to notability. As to WP:BLP1E, a political campaign these days is not a single event but often a year-long series of related events. This one seems to have generated major news coverage over a period of close to a year. The article may indeed have been "written by a supporter" but that is a matter for editing, not deletion. (the version nominated for the first AFD was far more promotional, and was largely written by Alexforpa (talk · contribs), an SPA who seems likely to have been the subject or a campaign staffer.) DES ^(talk) 16:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a sourced statement of the election results, and done some wikifing and formatting cleanup. DES ^(talk) 17:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also now two cited stories about his post-election advocacy for the William H. Pouch Boy Scout Camp, which suggest this is not a 1-event article. DES ^(talk) 17:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E says "...if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article..." It seems to me likely that this person will remain in the public eye, probably continuing political activism and getting coverage. The Pouch Camp mater seems the first sign of this. And it should be noted that I am in no sense a political supporter of this person's -- indeed I generally oppose the grups with which he appears to be allied. DES ^(talk) 17:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous AfD was in June 2009, much of the news coverage is later than that. So yes the person has become more notable since the AfD. DES ^(talk) 17:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He has indeed become more notable over the past 6mos. I also don't share his politics, but acknowledge that he remains in the public eye Vartanza (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update Per the remarks of DES, I agree to keep this article. The reason I listed it was that it had been proposed for deletion, and I felt the matter needed more scrutiny. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Des, Ret.Prof (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly has received significant coverage in WP:RS that are independent of the subject. Wine Guy Talk 09:07, 25 January 2010 (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.