Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Britton

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. LFaraone 00:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Joel Britton

Joel Britton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Declined CSD, but I do not believe adequate notability is asserted on the page, no independent sources are present, a search for sources only turns up non-reliable blurbs from clearly related organizations, or wikimirror bio links, and capturing 0.01% of the 2003 California recall vote is more indicative of non-notability than anything IMO Boogerpatrol (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I added six independent and reliable sources and expanded the article somewhat. There are more sources out there. The guy is notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Delete I Only three of the sources cited in the article appear to be about the subject (all in relationship to an election). The Los Angeles Times did not cover his run in 1989, and did run a short bio in 2004 . My sense is that the subject has not been covered by multiple sources in a significant manner. The subject does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Enos733 (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

My sense is that WP:POLITICIAN is for subjects who do not meet WP:GNG but are nevertheless to be considered notable. My argument is that he does meet the GNG, rather than POLITICIAN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that these sources are necessarily independent, reliable, or provide significant coverage of subject:

[1] is written by an individual associated with Britton's party, the SWP per [[Category:Socialist Workers Party (United States) presidential candidates], and source is about the same organization.

[2] only seems to indicate that he exists, and was involved in the group during his youth,

[3] describes Britton's elevation to the National Committee resulting from his being a college buddy of Barnes, and as "a case of 'elevating the mediocre and the pliant'"

[4],[5], [6], and [7] are either trivial mentions, or point out his status as "little known" or marginalized in the 2003 California recall circus, where, as mentioned above, he garnered his 751 (0.01%) of the vote,

and [8] is not independent, as "The Militant" is the official SWP organ.

(for the sources behind paywalls, review titles at the article, which seem to typically indicate his status as a patently minor candidate) Boogerpatrol (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as lacking substantial coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. He gets mentioned in the press, but aside from fringe candidacies, he doesn't get actual coverage. Thus, he fails both WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. The usual rule for a one-shot candidate is to redirect to the election's page, but his candidacies occurred multiple times, and are of such an insignificant nature, that deletion is merited. Ray^Talk 18:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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.