Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Forchion(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. This is a tough one. There are a few "keep" !votes based on the coverage present in the article, which does indeed look impressive. Alansohn is completely right that the number of times a person runs for office is irrelevant, nor is it relevant that part of the coverage concerns criminal acts. Indeed: "(i)t is [the] coverage that confers notability". Like Bearian, I would expect that a perennial candidate would generate sufficient coverage over the years. However, Bearcat's analysis rather effectively shows that the coverage present in the article is insufficient. The final "keep" !vote cast after that simply claims that in-depth sources can be found, but does not provide a single one. In all, I conclude that the "delete" !votes have the better case. Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Forchion[edit]

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

This article was nominated for deletion eight years ago. In that time Mr. Forchion is still not notable. He hass run for office many times and never won as much as 5% of the vote; he has been arrested several times - like thousands of other people who do not have a Wikipedia page. The length of the article is also suspect: too much detail for someone who is known simply as a criminal, unless the article comes from Mr. Forchion himself. In addition, half the source citations are to dead links, if they ever existed. Is Wikipedia designed to give publicity to every failed candidate and every person who went to jail? Surely the standards for notability must be higher than that.Catherinejarvis (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fixed the AfD. ansh666 18:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has nothing to do with how many times someone runs for office or what percentage of the vote one obtains or how often he has been arrested. Mr. Forchion's notability is based on coverage about him in reliable and verifiable sources, and he has received this coverage for over a decade. It is this coverage that confers notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. However, I would add that being a perennial candidate inevitably makes one notable. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of WP:RS establish notability. Per Alansohn above. --Jersey92 (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly plenty of independent coverage from reliable sources. The fact that coverage incorporates criminal charges makes no difference to the requirements of notability even if he hasn't won public office. A rather dubious nomination if I may be so bold to say. BritainD (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, out of all the sources in this article, literally only two pass muster as reliable sources — everything, and I do mean everything, else is an invalid source of some sort: njweedman is his own website, which borks #2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 24 and 25 as invalid primary sources; we're not allowed to cite stuff directly to the text of a court document, which kills #8 and 9; the mere presence of his name in a list of candidates does not confer notability, which destroys #14, 15, 17, 18 and 19; the pages being linked to in #22 and #26 don't actually have any content about him, and thus fail to even verify the content they're being cited to support; 10, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21 and 23 are dead links. Even the acceptable sources, #1 and #3, are dead links too — but since the complete citation details have been provided, that's forgivable in those cases — a dead link doesn't pass as sourcing if it's impossible to even verify what the source was, let alone what it did or didn't say. So out of 26 citations, we've got two, not 26, acceptable sources — but that's not enough to get a person over WP:GNG. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source it properly. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 20:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing in the article to show he's a notable politician. User Bearcat's analysis of the sources indicates this person also doesn't meet the GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If everyone who fails to get elected to something, or everyone who goes to jail, gets a Wikipedia article, then the policy should be that everyone on the planet gets their own Wikipedia article. Being known is not the same thing as being notable. The latter term applies to someone for achieving something. Let's be honest: what has this person actually achieved? The answer is: nothing. Thus, not notable.Asburyparker (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the apparent lack of accomplishment, a quick google search of the subject seems to show multiple independent reliable sources that have written with some depth about him. The article needs to be cleaned up along with the references. But it seems to meet wp:notability.Becky Sayles (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2014 (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.