Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gareth Rhodes

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Rhodes

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP: POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It does not fail WP:POLITICIAN. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are notable under it. He has gotten major coverage by Politico, Huffington Post, and Roll Call. Great Great Grandson (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Comment There has also been a New York Times Article about Gareth Rhodes. If that is not a major news story, I do not know what is. Great Great Grandson (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article is not about Gareth Rhodes. It is about the seven different candidates running for the same seat as Gareth Rhodes. Is there any (non-local) news coverage in which Gareth Rhodes is the subject of the article? Peacock (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~::: Yes. There Is a Politico story cited in the article that is specifically about Gareth Rhodes Great Great Grandson (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Great, now find several more articles like that. A candidate does not magically vault from "run of the mill" to "special case" just because one piece of coverage exists beyond his own district's local media — it still takes several more substantive pieces of nationalized coverage, not just one, to make a candidacy special. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides being a candidate, then he has to win the election and thereby hold the seat, not just run as a candidate, to become notable as a politician. But this demonstrates no strong claim of preexisting notability, and the existence of some campaign-related coverage is not an automatic WP:GNG pass for a candidate either, because every candidate can always show some evidence of campaign-related coverage. His district is in the immediate suburbs and exurbs of New York City itself, further, so the fact that one of the sources here is in The New York Times does not make his candidacy special — it just represents the expected local coverage in his local media, not evidence that his candidacy is storming the national notability ramparts — and at any rate, that source is not about him per se, but simply mentions his name in the process of being fundamentally an overview about all of the challengers vying in the Democratic primary, so it doesn't single Rhodes out as a special case over and above Antonio Delgado or Brian Flynn or Patrick Ryan or Erin Collier or David Clegg or Jeff Beals. And at any rate, NPOL #2's provision for "major local political figures" is about mayors and city councillors and county supervisors, not unelected candidates for anything. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is already enough as of today. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the wording in the article itself is misleading. RHodes is not currently running against the incumbent, despite what his campaign rhetoric may imply, he is vying for the change to challenge the incumbent in the general election. However the long standing guidelines are that even major party nominees for congress and not default notable, much less people just running for the nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wasabi,the,one. If not, then delete for failing to meet notability requirements as already explained well in comments above. Peacock (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2018 (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.