Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Condit

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 redirect to Gary Condit. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Condit[edit]

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

In looking at this one, I'm sort of on the fence. On one hand, there's the potential for having significant coverage, and he may just well cover that. On the other hand, it seems to be more or less promotional in nature, and there's typical precedent, per my understanding, that politicians at this level don't tend to quite meet the criteria that we hold any given article to. So I bring it here to ask our community - should we delete, or does it meet WP:GNG? -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As merely a candidate for congressional office he is not notable. He did get a little coverage during the Gary Condit/Chanda Levy news story, but not enough for an independent article. At this point I would Redirect to Gary Condit as is usually done for people whose claim to fame is a relationship to someone notable. If he should get elected the article could be recreated; ~~however he is unlikely to unseat Garamendi IMO.~~ --MelanieN (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; the district has been redrawn and technically has no incumbent running in November, although an incumbent Republican congressman who lives outside the district is running, as well as a Democrat. Condit is running as an independent and under California's new system he would have to be first or second in the primary to advance to the November election. Still unlikely IMO. In any case my Crystal Ball predictions are beside the point; the point is that whatever notability he has comes from his relationship to Gary Condit, not his candidacy. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gary Condit, per MelanieN. Presently does not appear to be notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Suggest keeping the edit history intact should the article merit recreation at a later time (as noted by the nom., there is clear potential for that). If kept, cleanup will be necessary. As noted by the nom., seems a bit promotional in tone and style.--JayJasper (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; subject presently fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG; additionally see WP:NOTINHERITED. If the subject is elected then the subject will pass POLITICIAN and will have sufficient notability to have an article, on those grounds it is too soon. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep"; subject is addressed in detail, no original research is necessary. Looks like submitting individual did not include all relevant info WP:Politician and WP:SIGCOV. OR *"Redirect" to coverage of that election or office not to Gary Condit. Mention of another politician in the conversation is unsettling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmetzner (talk • contribs) 19:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC) — Mattmetzner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You are right that there is another possible target for a redirect, namely United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2012#District 10. However at this point he is better known as a son and spokesperson for Gary Condit, and more information about him could be included in that article than in the election article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Predominantly I saw reason to create this article because his actions aren't just a passive association with his father. Also there is coverage of him spanning a good length of time for a variety of issues(2001quiting Gray Davis' office- being sued for possible fund embezzling- baskin robbins lawsuit-running for election 2012). So to me he meets the primary notability criterion that makes this article notable, but I'm biased as the creator. I'm open to adding more to topics, taking out anything deemed promotional, etc. Kirkconnell.k (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^{spill the beans} 21:47, 30 March 2012 (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.