Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Andrzejewski


 * 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. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 18:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Adam Andrzejewski

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:POLITICIAN. No references to secondary sources. Article has been speedied twice and the same content keeps getting reposted. Dismas |(talk) 17:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Wouldn't that indicate that this person is noteworthy?--Loudes13 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  17:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  17:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Doing a quick Google news search does seem to bring up a lot of significant third-party coverage of this person, especially with regards to his fund-raising ability. Seems to meet the third criteria mentioned in WP:POLITICIAN. The article could do with using these as references though PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, more or less per Panyd above. Here's the Google News results for 'Adam Andrzejewski': . Many of those are trivial references, but there's several that seem acceptable sources, such as, and . It looks to me like there are enough references to pass WP:BIO. Robofish (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, poorly written does not make the person irrelevant. It is hard to not read a political blog in IL and not see his name. He is also a regular on Chicago talk radio. --Loudes13 (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I would politely suggest that the nominator read the guidelines at WP:BEFORE... looking for sources is something that should be done before nominating an article for deletion, rather than being left to the participants of the AFD. Robofish (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion noted, thank you. Dismas |(talk) 02:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The references provide above don't accomplish much. Ref #2 tells he put his tax returns online. Is that really notable? Ref. #3 is a blog piece about how to pronounce his name. Ref. #4 is basoc coverage of his campaign. Basic coverage that he is running for an election next year really don't make him notable. If he wins the party nomination, then perhaps. Until then, he is 1 of 5 (so far) declared candidate and I'm sure there will be more. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too soon, if at all.  Person with no political office and no evidence that he will make the primary.  Article is substantially like a campaign press release, complete with wikipuffery like "entrepreneur", the implication that he could have retired at 37 without any financial records in evidence, claims of "national attention" from a magazine that itself is non-notable, crowing about "measurable accomplishments" because some county put its check register online, etc.  Even if subject were notable by now, this article would need to be reduced to WP:STUB or totally rewritten to meet WP:RS and WP:NPOV.  And it seems reasonable to conclude that "significant coverage" in criteria means sources from which coverage is a sign of notability.  Merely being able to fill space is a different story: making one's own media availability a full-time job is not notable (unless one leaks a sex tape and gets a TV show, but that has only worked for females so far).  And Wikipedia is for people who are already notable (see specifically WP:POLITICIAN), not those who someone thinks ought to be or are destined to be notable. --Closeapple (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per closeapple and the fact that news coverage (from google news) seems to be almost all local. Sure Chicago is huge the coverage seems trivial too. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't see any in depth coverage above of this person. Blogs in the Chicago tribune on the unpronouncability of his name and others relating to his candidature aren't sufficient. Per WP:POLITICIAN just being a candidate for office isn't enough. Valenciano (talk) 05:19, 29 July 2009 (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.