Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Ashjian

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 no consensus.

There is absolutely no consensus in any direction arising from this discussion. The keep !votes tend to point to the GNG; the delete !votes tend to either dispute that the GNG is met or focus on WP:POLITICIAN. All those positions are reasonable, but there's not consensus for any of them. Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ashjian

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

He will be notable if he is elected, but not yet. This is local news. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - fails general notability guidelines and has a tinge of WP:ATTACK about it. Eddie.willers (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Keep - since cleanup it appears to pass WP:POLITICIAN but there's still things I think are irrelevant to his candidacy (like his financial woes) that could be construed as an attack. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the General Notability Guidelines complaint, note THIS ARTICLE in the main Las Vegas newspaper featuring Ashjian. There seems NO DOUBT that he is a public figure. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enduring notability does not come from being a candidate for a minor political party in its first year, and a few media pieces in the local news. If he was a serious contender, I would agree with you. At present, this is WP:BLP1E territory, and a brief mention in the election article should suffice, and maybe a paragraph in the article about the political party. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Active politicians are inherently public figures and Wikipedia's ability to provide a neutral platform for their biographies constitutes one of its greatest public goods. That said, this article is POV-laden and I'm whipping out my hacksaw RIGHT NOW. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I haven't kept up with it since stubbing it out, and I'm glad Carrite is taking charge. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - POV fix completed. There are currently FIVE reputable source footnotes showing which deal with Scott Ashjian as the main subject of the article: four from the largest newspaper in the largest city in Nevada, one from a television station's news website. With all due respect, this is a really bad challenge and I hope that it will be withdrawn. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that the article is less jarring now, however Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a how-to-vote guide. We provide neutral information about existing public figures and policies, rather than about could be. Do you really think that he has enduring notability right now? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, we don't need to make a determination whether notability will last for all time. He's WAAAAAAAY over the notability bar right now. Carrite (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the idea that only Republican and Democratic U.S. Senatorial candidates are notable, and I seriously doubt our guidelines say anything of the sort. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't either, but that is the political system. According to List of United States Senators from Nevada, there hasn't been a senator not from either party. According to List of recent United States Senators, there have been only three senators from another party since 1981. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike WP:RECENTism as much as the next guy when it comes to article content. Article existence is an whole other matter my Aussie(IIRC?) friend. The Tea Party movement of which this candidate is a part has been a huge deal in the media here lately. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Carrite is totally wrong - Wikipedia isn't an advertising service for everyone who runs in an election, other sites exist for that purpose. Ashijan doesn't meet the notability criteria for his profession as agreed by the consensus in WP:POLITICIAN and there is also nothing in reliable sources unrelated to his candidacy, therefore he also fails WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what part of this of the cited POLITICIAN guidelines doesn't apply?: 3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Subject of the article has "significant coverage in outside reliable sources" up the ying-yang... Carrite (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As numerous politician AFDs in the past have shown, if the coverage is only related to the candidacy, then it isn't notable but falls under WP:NOTNEWS. In this case, coverage of his campaign in a few local news sources = not notable. Valenciano (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage isn't only related to the candidacy, as even a casual review of the titles of the references cited reveals. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Ivory (2nd nomination) is one example; this was an article which I created. Trevor Ivory ended up with 32% of the votes in the United Kingdom general election, 2010. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One needn't get a third of the vote to be notable. It's all about independent, reliable, third-party coverage about the subject, of which there is so much that it is difficult to understand why we are having this talk. The guy has been THE subject of multiple articles in a big city newspaper... We're not talking the Small Town Cryer running obligatory "Bill Smith is Running for City Council" pieces either. This is a tightly-fought US Senate race. Carrite (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense meant to the House of Windsor and whatever itty-bitty shire is North Norfolk, but Nevada is ~20% bigger than the United Kingdom by about 16,000 square miles. I think, theoretically, someone running for one of the top four most powerful positions in in the U.K. would be notable, regardless. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure who vandalized away the notability info I originally included when I started the article, but when he entered the race he was polling rather well, considering it's a 3-way race. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This candidacy is actually a pretty important feature of the 2010 Nevada US Senate race... Carrite (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That feature of the race can be adequately covered in United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010, which currently doesn't have a single word of prose about him. --John Vandenberg ^(chat)

I'll beg your pardon, it has two words about him, those being his first and last names, and a link to his biography. (I don't consider his name poetry, so it must be prose, imo) -- Kendrick7^talk 08:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, not yet sure this has enough WP:RS significant secondary source coverage to satisfy WP:NOTE, while overriding WP:BLP1E and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Certainly could be revisited after the election, or at a later point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was under the impression was that past consensus was that most candidates are not notable until elected. Has this changed? Anyways, could fail WP:POLITICIAN since he has not held a position and if he is a "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" is questionable. The footnote at WP:POLITICIAN says "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." He has one in depth profile. The other stuff is more than passing coverage but it being in-depth instead of just general news should be considered. There are also valid RECENTISM and ATTACK arguments for deletion. Will this guy be something that is historically significant if he is not elected? I doubt it. An article on the election is a suitable and reccomeded place for a mention of the guy.Cptnono (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he draws 3% and Harry Reid wins by 2%, you'd better believe he'll be historically significant. Even of the prospect of this outcome and the crazed charges and countercharges about whether he is a hireling of the opposition has already assured Ashjian's notabilty. This is a top-level election and this candidacy is a significant part of the historical narrative. Carrite (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for WP:CRYSTALBALL arguments. IMO he has already received enough coverage to be notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on that (see above), I just want to point out that a candidate doesn't have to win or to even have a chance of winning to gain historically significant status. He's already well over the notability bar for WP inclusion by any reasonable reading of general notability rules, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, since he has never held office, but he does meet WP:GNG, having been the subject of multiple news stories -- stories which are about HIM rather than simply reporting on the election. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 15:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fails WP:POLITICIAN, but he just limps over WP:GNG IMO with the coverage in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable with credible sources. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 10:01, 21 August 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.