- 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 speedy delete. I will note that while this page has been speedy deleted as the creation of a sockpuppet, the overwhelming majority of the discussion is in support of deletion, so regardless of who creates the article in the future, it will still be eligibly for G4 deletion (if the issues here have not been addressed). Primefac (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Stewart Levenson
AfDs for this article:
- Stewart Levenson (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)
Candidate only - no evidence of notability. PamD 16:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- delete A borderline speedy though the text is clearly different from the previous round, but it still comes off as an attempt to keep the candidate to the fore. The only possible sign of real notability is the whistleblower thing, which smells of WP:BLP1E except that we don't appear to have an article. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. I'll grant that this doesn't qualify for speedy, as the notability claim here is completely different than it was the first time, but it's still not one that makes the article keepable. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election is not grounds for a Wikipedia article — a person has to win the election and thereby hold office, not just have his name on the ballot, to pass WP:NPOL. But this doesn't make any claim of preexisting notability that would have gotten him an article for any other reason either. So no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here entitles him to already have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not a free hosting service for campaign websites. Pburka (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Arguments with a banned-paid-sock.Winged BladesGodric 14:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Delete Candidates for election generally do not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL just for being a candidate. Our precedents (which can change [and are expressed in WP:POLOUTCOMES ]) state that the campaign is notable per WP:BLP1E, but that the candidates are not notable by virtue of their campaign. There already exists United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2018, where some of the information about the subject could be added. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Arguments with a banned-paid-sock.Winged BladesGodric 14:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Keep Once wp:GNG has been met, WP:NPOL becomes irrelevant. Subject has been interviewed on national radio. Also, from WP:OUTCOMES:"When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources." So far, no one has suggested that any of that isn't true here. Gruenback (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)This user has nearly no other edits Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Strike sock TonyBallioni (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a political advertisement. NOTADVOCACY supersedes all considerations of notability . I probably would support a NPOV article article if he won the primary, but he hasn't even done that, so there is no point in rewriting. (I do think that major party candidates for a national-level office in a 2 party system are generally notable enough for articles.) DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be spam from an undisclosed paid editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Please salt this TonyBallioni (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Given the background, I think this could have been speedied. SarahSV (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. They'll get their wish if they win. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 05:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete & Salt. Do we have to clean up this guy's blp1e/advocacy/spam every campaign season? Cabayi (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable political candidate who fails to meet notability guidelines for politicians, biographies, or in general, really. Given the unwelcome and recurrent nature of this article, I'd advocate for a hefty dose of salt on the side. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. All of the sources are linked to his candidacy and talk about him being a major whistleblower which gives the impression that he may be notable over and beyond his candidacy. But not a single source is from before he announced his candidacy. This suggests that his PR team is pushing his whistleblowing to help his chances. GNG most certainly hasn't been met. Domdeparis (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete & Salt. This has been one of the most tenacious attempts in recent times to get a non notable vanity page (political election campaign) into mainspace. The original paid author KDS444 has been heavily sanctioned. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Stewart Levenson (only admins can see it). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete As per WP:TOOSOON, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTADVOCACY, plus worries over WP:COI. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 08:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. The sources provided really don't indicate either NPOL or GNG. This may change, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be salted in the meantime, especially given the COI and PAID concerns. RivertorchFIREWATER 08:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete & Salt Too much volunteer time has been wasted on this candidate. Edwardx (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Upon the basis that this is undisclosed paid editing. !dave 10:40, 23 January 2018 (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.