Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Fails

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 10:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fails[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:GNG and WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 14:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hollywood Park TX (pop. 3K) is not nearly large enough to guarantee its mayors instant notability per WP:NPOL #2 — he could still clear the bar if he could be really well-sourced as markedly more notable than most other smalltown mayors, but he's not automatically entitled to have an article just because he exists. Unsuccessfully challenging an incumbent congresscritter in a party primary is also not grounds for an article, either — a person has to win the general election, and thereby actually become an actual congressperson, to collect notability from the congressional election process. And the referencing here consists entirely of primary sources and routine coverage of the primary process, with no coverage being shown to demonstrate any potential notability as a mayor — which means there's no basis to claim that he passes WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue that it was not routine. In the United States it is traditional for the party to support the incumbent. The news was not routine as it was highly unusual. I believe this covers it. I will however work on finding better sources. It's my first article so please bare with my neophyteness. WP:NPOL #2 --Johnston49er (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it not routine for the sitting Governor to endorse an opponent in a primary, none of the sources I have seen make the subject more notable than most (candidates or small town mayors). There could be a case to be made that the election race is notable, as Johnston49er alludes to. --Enos733 (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to add that the argument Bearcat seems to be making is WP:DIDNOTWIN and WP:UNRS, both arguments that should be avoided --Johnston49er (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're misreading both DIDNOTWIN and UNRS if you think I'm violating them. DIDNOTWIN does not mean that every candidate in a party primary is entitled to have a Wikipedia article regardless of whether they won or not — a person who didn't win election to an NPOL-passing office may already have prior notability for other reasons besides the candidacy (i.e. we aren't deleting Hillary Clinton just because she lost the presidential election in 2016, because she was already notable for other reasons anyway), but preexisting notability for other reasons has to be shown, and is not automatically extended to every non-winning candidate for every office just because of the candidacy itself. And UNRS does not preclude evaluating sources for their reliability or lack thereof — in fact, it requires it, because what UNRS actually says is that primary sources aren't assistive of notability and do not support a valid keep argument. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is routine coverage for a candidate for political office. Running for state rep does not make one notable, ever. So there is no reason to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Texas has 181 legislative elections per cycle, meaning between primaries and general elections there are over 400 candidates for Texas legsilature, the vast majority of them have nowhere near 18 news articles about them, especially written in major publications like the Chronicle and the Tribune. Furthermore, almost no Texas State Representatives outside of major leadership has 18 articles written about them or their work. Not only is Fails more notable than most small town Mayors, he's far more notable than even most members of the Texas House of Representatives, all of whom have Wikipedia pages Rkmcshane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Kepp~~ The San Antonio Business Journal, which covers a metro area of 2.4 million people, named Fails one of their "2014 People on the Move." I would argue that if he's notable enough to be recognized by the San Antonio Business Journal, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkmcshane (talk • contribs) 00:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Edit to comment above -- The San Antonio Business Journal, which covers a metro area of 2.4 million people, named Fails one of their "2014 People on the Move." I would he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Rkmcshane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, for the record, you're not allowed to vote more than once in an AFD discussion. You're welcome to comment as many times as you wish, but you may not preface any followup comments with a bolded restatement of the vote you've already given. Secondly, making a local listicle in the local media does not automatically make a person nationally notable. And thirdly, you most likely have a conflict of interest here, because apart from your own autobiography about your work as a political strategist (which you weren't allowed to create for yourself in the first place, by the way), this is the first article you've ever even touched on Wikipedia about a person who isn't already named in your autobiography as one of your paying clients. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other Mayors of Hollywood Park have Wiki articles, people with far less press coverage than Fails, such as Bala Srinivas, how has 2 mentions in major media. It would be very abritary to delete Fails who has 18 articles about him. As previously mentioned, Fails has more press about him than Texas State Representatives, all of whom have Wikipedia Articles. Rkmcshane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nothing stops anybody from creating any article about anything they want to at any time — but we can only delete it if and when the responsible editors see it. So no, the fact that Bala Srinivas has an article does not mean this has to be kept — it means the other article has to be deleted. So congratulations on the backfire — the act of bringing his article up got it placed on track for deletion too. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Chris Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, with only routine coverage in secondary sources and insufficiently high office to merit a presumption of notability. Additionally, note that other editors have repeatedly asked about the apparent COI issue, with no response. Bakazaka (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bakazaka can you clarify what apparent COI issue you are referring to? I reread this entire page and checked the talk page and no COI issue has ever been raised. --Johnston49er (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the unanswered questions asked at User talk:Rkmcshane about edits on political figures. Bakazaka (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are the first person to bring this up. Right now. Johnston49er (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read it and weep gentlemen. https://ibb.co/ncjpxts https://ibb.co/sbm9Hjp https://ibb.co/bmS7T5t --Johnston49er (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every mayor of every place on the planet can always show a couple of articles in their own local media. The key to making a smalltown mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not just to show a handful of pieces of local media coverage in his own town's local media — because, again, no mayor on the planet ever couldn't show that. It's to show media coverage that marks him out as special, such as nationalizing into The New York Times. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^Not sure I'd phrase it that way, but this guy is literally on the front cover of a local magazine, was written up in the local business journal, has been written about in dozens of articles, including Texas' top media outlets, and is an elected official. I think it's clear he is certainly notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. 2001:579:9091:7400:9DB:9C36:DA3D:9164 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the front cover of a local magazine is not an instant pass to free notability for a smalltown mayor, being written up in the local business journal is not an instant pass to free notability for a smalltown mayor, being a smalltown mayor is not an instant pass to free notability in and of itself, and the article still isn't showing any evidence of media coverage expanding beyond the purely local type that any mayor of anywhere could simply and routinely be expected to receive. The key to making a smalltown mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not "local media coverage exists", because every mayor who has ever served as mayor in any place that has mayors can always show some of that — the key to making a smalltown mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is that the coverage demonstrates him as having a strong claim to being more notable than most other smalltown mayors, but that's not being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above is rediculous, not only has he recieved more press coverage than almost any member of the Texas House of Representatives -- all of whom have Wikipedia articles, not only has he been on the front cover of a magazine, unlike most even Texas State Senators, all of whom have Wikipedia articles, he has been covered by the Austin American Statesman, Longview Journal, Dallas Morning News, all hundreds of miles away from his city of Hollywood park. Rkmcshane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, being on the front cover of a magazine is not an instant notability freebie that makes him more notable than people who were covered in a publication without being on its front cover — the notability test for magazine content lies in the substance of what gets said in the article, not in whether the subject was placed on the cover or not. And at any rate, it's a local interest magazine in his own local media market, not a nationally distributed magazine on the order of Time or Newsweek or The Atlantic, so the existence of that magazine cover is not an instant notability freebie that would exempt him from actually having to have a strong notability claim just because you uploaded a photo of the magazine cover. Secondly, if he's been covered in all of those newspapers, then why aren't any of those articles actually being used as sources? As it stands, I can't evaluate whether or not you actually understand the distinction between "substantively covered" and "glancingly namechecked" — a distinction people who are determined to get themselves or their friends into Wikipedia for publicity purposes regularly cheat on — because no sourcing to the Austin American Statesman, the Longview Journal or the Dallas Morning News is actually present in the article at all. And thirdly, no, the amount of media coverage shown here is not wildly outdoing what state legislators typically get. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, we agree that him just being a mayor of a smalltown isn't notable. What makes him notable is the serious primary challenge he levied against the sitting State Rep tha received widespread support which we have demonstrated in spades. --Johnston49er (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mounting an unsuccessful primary challenge, "serious" or not, is not a notability criterion — the notability test for politicians is holding an NPOL-passing office, not running for one and losing. There are a few rare exceptions where a person who wasn't already notable prior to the candidacy can become notable on campaign coverage alone, but that's deliberately set as a very high bar — the benchmark a candidate would have to hit to be deemed notable just for being a candidate is Christine O'Donnell, who set off such an international media firestorm — I'm Canadian and she got covered here — that her article is actually at least twice as long as, and cites three times as many distinct sources as, our article about the actual senator she lost to. It's not a bar that every candidate for political office clears just because some media coverage of the primary campaign exists — some media coverage of all primary campaigns always exists. It's a bar that requires the media coverage to explode into the likes of CNN and the BBC, not just to media outlets in Texas which would simply be expected to always cover all Texas primaries. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin The WP:BLUDGEON approach here by editors with highly-focused editing histories and unanswered COI questions suggests that we have entered WP:COITALK territory. Bakazaka (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with the nominator's rationale -- Whpq (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL is clear that significant, in-depth, independent coverage is required if a political figure is to be considered notable. Moving for a delete, as the sources cited by the article do not indicate this; many reference Fails, but only in passing, and existence does not merit inclusion on an encyclopedia.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2019 (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.