Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Esrati (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 delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Esrati[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)

Almost certainly an WP:AUTOBIO of a perennial candidate who fails WP:NPOL. Even if the subject passes WP:GNG it most likely needs rewriting due to the promotional nature of the article GPL93 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article was deleted by unanimous vote in 2008. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NPOL. Reywas92^Talk 18:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Being a perennially-losing perennial candidate for political office is not an WP:NPOL pass, but this article is referenced nowhere near well enough to make him special — it's referenced almost entirely to primary sources and glancing namechecks of Esrati's existence in media coverage of other things or people, not to coverage that's about him in any non-trivial way. To be fair, the original creator in 2008 is the likely autobio candidate — but their work got deleted at AFD within two weeks, and the article was then recreated in 2010 by an editor who was far less likely to be Esrati (they stuck around for another couple of years and edited on other topics unconnected to Dayton municipal politics.) So the 2008 AFD wouldn't be grounds for speedying this by any means, but this definitely isn't a significant notability or sourcing improvement over the original version either. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:NPOL, thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL; the only part of this article to have real notability is the reference to Dayton v. Esrati which would argue if anything a page for it and not the article being considered for deletion. Looking into it though, the case seems to be more a footnote than a major case when referenced in sources. Userqio (talk) 06:10, 9 April 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.