Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. King (attorney)

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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David A. King (attorney)[edit]

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

All of the sourced cited in the article are either self-published, user-generated, or routine coverage and do not establish notability. If this candidate gets through the primary he may obtain significant enough coverage to establish notability, but for now it appears WP:TOOSOON. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. --Weazie (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - there's no evidence he passes either WP:POLITICIAN or as a lawyer; see User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the topic is included at California Attorney General election, 2014, so the topic is not insignificant. Also, the wp:notability of the topic is currently in flux. It is not our WP:ATD policy to delete the article or the topic for non-nobility, rather to redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., then, redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or any other guideline; primary purpose seems to be as an assist in his campaign for the election coming up a few weeks. "Look, he's got a Wikipedia article." <soapbox>We really need a Speedy Deletion category for election campaign sleaze tactics.</soapbox>. TJRC (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't agree about the sleaze, and having worked some on the article I believe that this is a respectable candidate. The reason that your argument is not policy based is because the future-event article [California Attorney General election, 2014] exists in mainspace, and this topic therefore merits inclusion as a redirect in the encyclopedia as per our policy WP:ATD. The source of the problem is that there is no purpose in an encyclopedia to have mainspace articles about future events. This is a chronic problem that routinely invites promotion. Instead of speedy delete, what I think is needed is a speedy incubate until 15 Nov 2014 for the future event. Then this bio would no longer have a policy-based claim for inclusion in mainspace. Unscintillating (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation is for articles that need further editing to improve their quality. WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. I wouldn't be opposed to an R with possibilities redirect. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the election has an article — which is in no way a violation of our rules, as the election campaign is current and ongoing — does not mean that every person whose name happens to be mentioned in it automatically qualifies for their own standalone BLP. Our policies around political candidates in fact are quite clear that a person does not qualify for an article just for being a candidate in an election (and even less for being a candidate in a primary that they haven't won yet) — but rather, with exceedingly rare exceptions for people who somehow explode into national news, the candidate must actually win the election to qualify for an article on here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if he wins in November; if you want to redirect him to the article on the election he's running in, then you still have the option of doing that from a redlink. If he does win, furthermore, then we have the option of restoring the old article if desired — so we don't have to keep the old edit history visible in anticipation either. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is pure spam for a non-notable attorney. Redirect to the election he is running in, per usual practice. If you want to delete the article and then create the redirect (so as to get rid of the spammy history) that is OK with me.--MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been cleaned up to the point where all controversial claims now have satisfactory citations. It is in no way a puff piece or "campaign sleaze." It does not blindly trumpet successes of the candidate and in fact references the candidate's criticism in multiple publications. The topic of this article has had no less than six articles about him published by independent sources (these six are all cited in the article). This thereby establishes notability. He is also an author that has himself published several articles, some of which are also cited in this article. He has been recognized not merely for being a candidate in the Attorney General race but for his authorship, 501(c)(3), the congressional elections case he won (also a topic on Wikipedia), and for serving on the Regional Water Board. It is also not irrelevant that he is running for attorney general. He is certainly one of the most likely candidates to continue on to the general, and has received considerable press for his campaign. Furthermore, Wikipedia is meant to serve as a source of information to the public. It can be a useful resource in elections and for various other reasons. I would hate to see this article deleted for reasons of political bias and prevent the spread of information for which Wikipedia was formed.Aspencoons (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Aspencoons 14:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability does not require a minimum of six articles as you claim. Furthermore, the fact that he edits a news blog and serves on a water board doesn't make him notable either. He certainly hasn't received "considerable press for his campaign" either. In fact, a news search turns up very little on his campaign. Tiller54 (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN, as noted above. Tiller54 (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2014 (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.