Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark McCloskey

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to St. Louis gun-toting controversy. – bradv🍁 14:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McCloskey[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Mark McCloskey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At this point, obvious case of WP:BLP1E to St. Louis gun-toting controversy, and does not meet WP:NPOL. If he wins the Senate election or even gets the Republican nomination then he might be notable enough for an individual entry, but that's WP:CRYSTAL and the page can be created at that time if necessary. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at this point McCloskey is not notable as a political candidate. The coverage of his actions in trying to get intruders off his property does not rise to the level to justify an article. If he wins the election which is nearly 18 months away he will be notable, until then he is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to St. Louis gun-toting controversy, as was the case until May 19. There's no point deleting this page. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he's already notable. Way past one event before this senate run. Now it's a no brainer keep. We could write a 200 reference article on him if anyone cares to. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect announcing a Senate run isn't really an "event" that would qualify you for a page if you weren't otherwise notable. A delete and redirect is proper here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to counter some of the arguments that have been made since I posted, candidates for senate office do not automatically become notable for a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of the articles on the site, and time and time again we've found that people who run for office do not meet that standard. While he was involved in a previous event, a promotional senate campaign doesn't mean he's notable enough for an article - of course, that argument is moot if he wins. SportingFlyer T·C 12:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, I would argue there is an enduring coverage about this guy, particularly thanks to his biography prior to announcing his candidacy (the gun controversy and all that). I mean, I had just learnt about the guy from John Oliver, because he was given an entire segment on his show. --212.74.201.233 (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, and the community made a conscious decision to redirect this title to the event instead of having a stand-alone page. The campaign isn't in itself notable. SportingFlyer T·C 12:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are wrong though. The community didn't make this decision, some guy did when creating the redirect. And now we are as a community discussing whether this page should exist or not. Moreover, this redirect was created in August, before he started his campaign, when he was only notable for the gun controversy, so your argument is entirely null and void. --212.74.201.233 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, not really. Nobody tried to make the article before it was redirected, and now it's only being created to support a candidacy which is, for now, not notable. Again, our long standing policy is that non-notable people cannot become notable just by filing to run for office. There really hasn't been any argument made to the contrary. SportingFlyer T·C 18:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He was involved in a notable event and is a candidate for major office. He meets the notability guidelines for a page.XavierGreen (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The event already has its own article, and being a candidate for office does not in and of itself meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. Banana Republic (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to St. Louis gun-toting controversy. So far, this is WP:BLP1E and WP:PROMO, Wikipedia is not meant to be a placeholder for aspiring politicians, or advertising for anyone's private business clientele. Note that this article begins by telling us, "Mark McCloskey is an American personal injury lawyer ... ". There is no indication either McCloskey or his wife accomplished anything notable. Pointing a gun at anyone in America is not an anomaly, and certainly not a qualification for WP notability. One of the known motivations for someone to announce their candidacy, is for the name recognition that will increase traffic to their private enterprise. At this point, it serves only as a promotional blurb. Nothing else. — Maile (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Although I prefer deletion, I would also go along with a Redirect. This individual is known for gun headlines, which is not an anomaly in the United States. If he becomes (or is) an official candidate, it only means he paid $200 filing fee, and showed up in person to register. Missouri candidate filing requirements. He's only known for one event. — Maile (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being a candidate for office does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. See WP:NPOL. Banana Republic (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's where we disagree. I think him being notable for both running for office (and apparently being presented as a likely candidate to succeed in the nomination), and the gun controversy in my opinion makes him notable for the standalone article. I've skimmed the rule you linked and I think he fits this rule, in spirit if not in fact. 212.74.201.233 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Running for the US Senate from Missouri means only that he has to pay a $200 filing fee, and show up in person to register. Missouri candidate filing requirements. — Maile (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By its own terms, WP:BLP1E only applies if the "person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." I truly do not see how that could possibly be true of McCloskey: he spoke at the RNC, appears on television, and is now running for the Senate. As this essay cogently explains, BLP1E is an exception that should be interpreted narrowly, lest it swallow up the rule. Since BLP1E is inapplicable, we're left with the GNG, which McCloskey quite indisputably passes in spades, e.g. 1 2 3 4, all of which are well-regarded national or international outlets. NPOL is also no obstacle, since it explicitly notes that candidates "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." In sum, notwithstanding the political overtones of such an article, I don't find this a difficult case, Like McCloskey or not, a fair interpretation of policy requires me to conclude that he's notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Ok, so I went to 2022 United States Senate election in Missouri and it says that he is a potential candidate, not that he is a candidate. His notability will arrive in 2022, not now. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's right. He has declared his candidacy now, but the race isn't until 2022, when he could feasibly receive the Republican nomination. I believe that's the point you were making, but it's not correct to say he isn't currently a candidate. I agree that being a candidate itself isn't enough to pass NPOL. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_McCloskey&oldid=1028210000"