Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Becker (politician)

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. Tone 20:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Becker (politician)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Razer(talk) 19:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the suggestion that Mr. Becker fails the notability test. He has been interviewed or cited in numerous local and statewide news sources, with occasional coverage in national papers. Information about him appears on a variety of websites of organizations he's associated with. He's been a notable citizen in the Bay Area for well over a decade, as an associate of Gavin Newsom during his mayorship, an investor/advisor for firms such as OPower (which was eventually purchased by Oracle) and Lex Machina, and as a member of various appointed boards.

I'm fine, though, with pulling the article off the main site until the draft can be improved -- I wasn't aware of the "draft space" being a thing until today. I attempted to just wipe the article in favor of a link directing anyone else that might want to edit it to the draft, but @Praxidicae: reverted that edit. Auros (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as electoral candidates, as the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but candidates also do not automatically get a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL just because a few hits of local campaign coverage exist, because every candidate in every election everywhere can always show a few hits of local campaign coverage. So to deem a candidate notable on GNG grounds regardless of not passing NPOL yet, it's not enough to just show a smattering of local campaign coverage: we would require evidence of nationalized coverage, demonstrating a credible reason why his candidacy could be considered much more special than everybody else's candidacies. And the concept of preexisting notability for other things that would already have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy is also not being fulfilled here, either — people are not notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they have "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies or organizations, but still have to show reliable source media coverage about that prior work before they can claim to be notable for it. And neither is the notability test, for either politicians or founders of organizations, passed by being "interviewed" or "cited" — it's passed by being the subject of coverage, not just by having one's name mentioned in coverage of other things. If he wins the state senate seat in November, then he'll obviously get an article at that time, since his notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "NPOL-passing officeholder" — but notability is judged by what's already true about the subject today, not by predicting what might become true six months or a year from now, and nothing that's already true about him today clears our notability standards yet. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this seems fair enough. Having been around in Bay Area politics and tech for twenty years, I would say if you asked virtually anyone who's held local offices here who he was, they'd know, even though he hasn't held office himself, and he's also widely known and respected among folks involved in the Sand Hill VC industry, particularly the subset that cares about politics. But if that's not how we're defining notability, OK... (And yes, I know "no original research", but that's why I found links to a bunch of local articles.) Is there any reason not to revert the Draft version of the article to accumulate content there, that could be submitted as an AfC depending on the election outcome?

Delete - People do not get articles for only being candidates. This article about Becker reads like a campaign brochure. Also, his article has been created and edited by someone involved with his 2020 campaign, to quote Auros's (the article's creator) user page: "volunteered with Jerry McNerney's first successful campaign for the House, and with the 2010 and 2020 campaigns of Josh Becker." If Becker wins in November 2020, then he is eligible for a Wikipedia article. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 14:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates for state legislative office do not meet WP:NPOL for being a candidate. As Bearcat says our community expects "evidence of nationalized (And I would add "or international") coverage, demonstrating a credible reason why his candidacy could be considered much more special than everybody else's candidacies." --Enos733 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. Waggie (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local coverage of a candidate does not add up to passing GNG, otherwise we might as well rule all candidates for public office notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Being a former political aide who runs for office is very common and neither guarantees an WP:NPOL pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely nothing more than run of the mill. He seems to be very progressive and has done worthy and respectible work, but so have millions of activists - that's not notable. FWIW, I am a former Democratic committee person ad candidate. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2020 (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.