Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Ellington

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. Sandstein 09:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Ellington[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)

Very much a CV of a young and, apparently, successful man who is currently running for political office in a District of San Fransisco. This suggests the article has been written to raise his profile during his campaign (and the author is apparently a paid editor). Very little in the way of significant reliable secondary coverage about Ellington, apart from a news article about housing in a neighbourhood of SF where he has purchased property. Insufficent proof of notability, fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG; no presumption of notability for political candidates, especially for municipal elections. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Reads very promotionally. SportingFlyer talk 07:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in municipal elections — he would have to win a supervisor's seat to pass WP:NPOL, and absent that he has to have enough preexisting notability for other reasons to pass another inclusion criterion. But this article shows no evidence of that at all: about half the footnotes are primary sources that cannot support notability at all, and the half that are media coverage are not enough in volume or range or depth to make his candidacy special. An unelected city council candidate passing GNG is not just a question of "some media coverage exists", because some media coverage always exists of city council elections: we consider factors like what context that coverage is being given for, how much coverage there is, how widely dispersed it is from purely local, and/or how deeply it focuses on him. But this doesn't pass any of those four tests. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there seems to be enough mentions in news articles to establish notability. "Reads promotionally" is something that can be fixed, not a reason for deletion. It's unclear what the Doc James claim of paid editing stems from. What can he say about that? Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 7 August 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.