Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Quintana for U.S. Senate

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 speedy delete. Frankly, the title alone was Wikipedia:CSD#G11-worthy. If anything was worth merging into Brian Quintana, let me know and I'll undelete to user space...especially since I wouldn't be surprised to see a sequel to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Quintana. — Scientizzle 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Quintana for U.S. Senate

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

Non-notable article that should be merged with Brian Quintana. I attempted to do so, but Quintana supporters/detractors appear to want this article to stand and have reversed attempts to merge. ttonyb (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Speedy merge, no need for a separate page, autobiographical entry from blocked user. Hairhorn (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for G5 and filed new SPI case. Hairhorn (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with respect to Hairhorn above, there is not even a need to merge because everything of note is already at Brian Quintana (perhaps thanks to previous merge attempts). If supporters or detractors have reversed merge attempts, SALT might be worth discussing. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything notable is at Brian Quintana. This is an attempt at a puff-piece duplicating much of the same content. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability doesn't require that the campaign committee be famous or popular, some people seem confused on that fact. Brian Quintana for U.S. Senate is a notable entity in Hollywood and Washington DC as the many sources indicate. This page was not created by a banned user as noted by Hairhorn who has made numerous changes to Brian Quintana page and may be biased. alphamale7 (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC) — Alphamale7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Making a statement that something is notable does not make it so. If you feel it is notable please indicate how using Wikipedia guidelines. ttonyb (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:N. --Morenooso (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes notability test easily, but the article is in danger of becoming a WP:COATRACK for BLP violations; I am not certain that the cited material in Brian Quintana article (all about harrassment suits and the like) doesn't violate WP:UNDUE in some real way; however this is a cleanup issue. This new Senate Campaign entity seems notable so the article should be kept. --User:cathycamp.talk.contribs 12:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC) — Cathycamp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Making a statement that something is notable does not make it so. If you feel it is notable please indicate how using Wikipedia guidelines. ttonyb (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin - User:cathycamp has been canvassing for keep !votes. See [1], [2], [3] -- Whpq (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge or redirect. Unlikely search term, anything notable or useful can be noted at Brian Quintana article. Note: I was specifically canvassed to comment here : [4] because I voted "keep" in a prior deletion debate on the Brian Quintana article, and I was asked to vote keep here as well. --Jayron32 19:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] would indicate there is more than a minimum of coverage to establish notability. Issues of article ownership, conflict of interest, tone, and verifiability can be dealth with through editting. -- yourmistaken (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)— yourmistaken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.