Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Schilling

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 August 31.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 Delete. Consensus was that this doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN, and I believe that to be correct. Clearly, to pass #3 of this guideline, coverage does have to be significant outside the local press; otherwise every local councillor or representative in the entire world would effectively be notable. Equally clearly, if he wins the nomination and starts getting more widespread coverage then there if every possibility that he may cross the line of notability in the future.Black Kite 17:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Schilling

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN. Only coverage is the standard local dross you'd expect from any congressional candidate Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete One of the articles even says that this guy does not have a shot at unseating the incumbent. No real notability outside the locality either, unless he wins Corpx (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's just let it stand for awhile. The campaign is just getting started, and he could (and probably will) pick up steam. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "it will be notable in six months" is listed under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; it's a bad idea to make it. Obviously since you created the article I hardly expected a delete vote, but one that doesn't go directly against long-established advise would be nice. Ironholds (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is well-written and well-researched and well-cited, if I do say so myself. I don't see any good reason to delete this. It's unfair that every article made by a newbie like me gets deleted for no reason, or a reason that is not articulated. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think a userfy to your subspace might be the best option, from where it could be moved back if he wins the election or otherwise attains notability outside the locality Corpx (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        A reason has been given, and articulated. We don't delete "every article ~~about~~ by a newbie like me", just those that fail our inclusion guidelines. In this case we've certainly given a reason - he fails our inclusion guidelines for politicians, and the sourcing given (local papers, exactly what you'd expect from a candidate) is not enough to fulfil other requirements. Ironholds (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he can't be included as a politician, can we just keep him as a miscellaneous person or something? P.S. you said "every article about...me", this article is not about me. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this press release over 100 people showed up at Schilling's town hall. He is gaining notoriety. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you need to look up the meaning of notoriety :p. "over 100 people" turning up at a meeting is neither a large number nor part of our inclusion criteria, and a press release is not an acceptable source to establish notability. Ironholds (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nonetheless, would it really hurt Wikipedia that badly to keep it up? NYyankees51 (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - This guy is all over the news Quincy Whig Article they also confirmed that here Schilling is a legitimate candidate and his records are on the FEC website. He should not be deleted. Illinoisforgrowth (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        New references added today. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has over 100 views and is already receiving vandalism. Wikipedia articles are definitely legitimate once they get vandalized! :P

I respectfully request this article be de-nominated for deletion, and also request that it be nominated for semi-protection. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- That's not a valid argument. I respectfully request that you stop making counter-arguments until you can base it on policy or guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He hasn't even won the nomination, so he clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. The article states untruths (he is not yet the republican candidate) and the two local newspaper articles used as sources do not actually support most of the content in the article. If we stubbed it down to factual information that can be reliably sourced, it would say only that he is a contender for the party's nomination and a pizza joint owner, and what would be the point of that? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete. Anyone who runs for a public office is considered a politician. By your standards, some Presidential candidates would not be considered politicians either. This is complete legalism-the guy is running for office, he is holding town halls, and is registered with the Federal Election Commission. This is probably just the opposition trying to keep him off. If he is not allowed on right now, then when can we actually post a page for him? After he wins the nomination? After he wins the election? When is the correct timing for the "WikiNazis?"—Illinoisforgrowth (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.242.45 (talk) — Illinoisforgrowth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Well personally I'm British, so I couldn't really give a flying fig about who he is or what his policies are. Being registered is hardly a sign of notability: Boris Smarnoff of the Legalise Police Tickling party can by federally registered, it doesn't make him notable. Since most presidential candidates are governors, senators or similar, that comparison fails rather spectacularly. Avoid using language like "WikiNazi"; we have a strong policy prohibiting personal attacks. Ironholds (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. If he wins the election, or gains the attention of more than local media, then an article would be appropriate. But he doesn't quite meet the guidelines yet. Note that these guidelines apply to all candidates, regardless of what party or country they belong to. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
No delete, as far as I can tell, he passes WP:POLITICIAN -- "an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." I can't back down until and unless you give me a legitimate circumstance under which the article would become "notable". Lankiveil, where in Wikipedia policy does it say he has to gain attention of more than the local media?NYyankees51 (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a requirement, but if a local candidate is getting attention outside of their local area, chances are they're going to pass any notability test one could throw at them. See: Ned Lamont. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

He has over 1,000 people in the Bobby Schilling for Congress facebook group, over 2000 followers on Twitter already. People know who he is.NYyankees51 (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, make an argument that draws on policy. "facebook loves him"; nobody gives a fig. Ironholds (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIGNUMBER - Google hits/facebook friends etc are not factors in deciding if he has notability outside the locality Corpx (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Mentioned in Roll Call, a Washington, D.C.-based newspaper. Scroll to the bottom of "the races" box. http://www.rollcall.com/electionmap/IL.html NYyankees51 (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sufficient; WP:BIO requires the source to give "significant" coverage, which is certainly more than just a paragraph in an article about candidates for various districts. Ironholds (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's received significant coverage in the local media, and I still don't understand why that doesn't work for you guys. Nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it say the coverage has to be from sources outside the locality. You guys just keep flopping all over the place. When will you be satisfied? If this continues, I am going to either contact a real administrator to set things straight, or remove the AfD box since you have no real argument, or both. Stop trying to run things and just let go. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think Wikipedia should have an entry for anyone who ever put their name into a local election. You cannot remove an AFD box while AFD is ongoing, like you can with a WP:PROD, especially when are 4 "votes" to delete, versus one to keep (discounting the WP:SPA. Anyway, look at WP:NOT#NEWS. "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own.". Does this guy have any long term notability unless he wins the election? NYyankees51, don't take this the wrong way, but I'm curious to know if you have any affiliation with Mr Schilling or his campaign. Corpx (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2009 (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.