Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Nixon Cox (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Rough consensus here is to keep, but consider opening a redirect discussion on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Nixon Cox[edit]

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN; coverage is not significant enough to pass WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence given that he meets notability guidelines for politicians. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ...though it pains me to say so. Cox does have plenty of evident significant coverage, however undeserved it may be: NY Daily News, Huffington Post, NY Times, CBS News, and NBC News are just some examples I found in a 2-minute search. While notability may not be inherited on Wikipedia, it obviously is in politics. The article itself is terrible (and will momentarily receive an editorial lashing) but I can't agree that it should be deleted on grounds of notability. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Steve S. says it best, the guy is notable by Wikipedia's definition of widespread coverage in independent and reliable sources, whether one thinks that he deserves to be [1]. Mandsford 02:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Active Politician = public figure = public service for Wikipedia to maintain free, open, independent coverage. Notability schmotability... Carrite (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...Please tell me you're being deliberately stupid. Ironholds (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability schmotability" is kind of like saying "accuracy schmaccuracy". Wikipedia isn't a government-funded agency or a public service. Mandsford 19:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Simply being born to someone who was born to someone notable is not being independently notable. By wikipedia's standards that is not enough. His "small business"is too vague and simply running for office is not enough, by wikipedia standards, to be considered notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.196.233 (talk • contribs)

Delete We don't have articles for the grandchildren of every American President, why should this one be any different. If we are going to have articles for Congressional candidates, than there should be articles for every single candidate in the country. Wikipedia is being bias. HE IS NOT A POLITICIAN NOR HAS HE EVER BEEN ELECTED TO POLITICAL OFFICE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pliggie1 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very few grandkids of presidents remain politically active, as he has. The sources show his notability. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to see how your first sentence is at all relevant. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person in question is running for U.S. Congress from New York's 1st congressional district. He has received sustained coverage in daily periodicals, such as Newsday, the New York Daily News, Politico, and other politically-focused news sources. The sources used on the page itself are all from reputable publications or the individual's official biography. It is noteworthy that his primary opponent, who has also never held office, has a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Altschuler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Em6641 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 8 "references", 4 of which are blogs and the other 4 merely establish that he's running for Congress which is not notable per longstanding consensus as WP:POLITICIAN. As for his relationship to Nixon, this is covered by Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Family: "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." As an additional point, I've just restored the AFD discussion tag to the article which user:Em6641 removed, so users please leave those tags there while the discussion is ongoing. Valenciano (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage alone justifies the article. Thriley
Keep - although blogs are not normally good proof of notability, I think an official NY Times blog written by a real journalist, in a journalistic style, probably qualifies. This is one such entry that really reads like an article and I think is sufficient evidence of notability, especially when coupled with the extremely minor notability granted by virtue of who his father and his maternal grandfather are. Powers ^T 12:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — An article is enough significant. Necessary to preserve and develop it. Elm478 (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New York's 1st congressional district. If he gets coverage only because of his candidacy he ought to be redirected per WP:POLITICIAN. I'd do the same to the article on Randy Altschuler as well. NtheP (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2010 (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.