Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott M. Sipprelle

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 keep. Based on the links discussed here. And yes, the quote is outstanding. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott M. Sipprelle

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

Subject is mainly known as a political candidate, but fails WP:POLITICIAN because he has yet to win office, and has not otherwise met notability guidelines. Since this article was created shortly after Sipprelle's announcement of candidacy, and did not exist during his business career, I suspect that this article is meant to tacitly support his candidacy, though blatant promotion is not present. Request deletion without prejudice, in case he does win this election, in which case he would clearly meet notability guidelines for politicians. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's borderline, but he did win the Republican primary election against David Corsi - Corsi has never even won a primary, but it's something. Running for a seat in the U.S. Congress with the support of a major party is a pretty big deal. Dcoetzee 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been general precedent on House of Representatives races that a candidate is not notable just for running. He or she must have achieved notability through other means, unless the race itself garners significant statewide or national attention. I'll agree this call is borderline, and he may get enough coverage in the run-up to the general election to merit an article. But not yet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - straight delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN - no problem with a recreate if he wins election. Codf1977 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looking for news sources by getting rid of the middle initial, I found this and this to suggest that he has notability from his business activities, apart from the current run for office. This information isn't in the article, probably because it isn't relevant to his campaign which seems to be the reason for the page's creation, but it can certainly be added by someone who can see the full articles. Businesses mentioned matched the ones in the article's biography, so I'm pretty sure this is the same Scott. Yoshi348 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as Yoshi348. He was probably at least scraping notability for his investments career, e.g. [1][2][3]; add in a run for the House of Representatives and he sails home. And it's not really relevant to his notability, but this raised a smile: "In 1995 Scott Sipprelle, then a young banker at Morgan Stanley, having urged his client, Netscape's chief executive Jim Barksdale, to show some restraint in pricing the internet browser company's shares, acknowledged that US investors were ripe for the taking: "Jim - you're at the senior prom. Your date is drunk. Whether you're a gentleman is up to you."[4] Fences&Windows 20:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still not totally convinced re notability, but that quote is priceless. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:22, 25 June 2010 (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.