Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Snitker


 * 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. Consensus to delete this article is lacking, as the sources located rebut the BLP and V concerns. Still, there is a split as to whether the encyclopedia is best served by this as a stand alone article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Snitker

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Libertarian Party candidate for US Senate in Florida. Article admits that he has had "little mainstream coverage"; sources are either blogs or obscure (and non-neutral) news sites, most or all of which appear to be reprinting the candidate's PR releases. Fails WP:BLP and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * UPDATE The Snitker campaign just called a press conference |here to be held this Wednesday morning (4/21/10) at the Florida capitol building for a "major announcement".  I move that the final resolution either be keep pending the outcome, or hold the debate open until at least 4/22/10. - PlainSight (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC):
 * UPDATE 2 At the press conference this morning, U.S. Senate candidate Alexander Snitker announced that he has met all the requirements and will be on the November ballot, the first Libertarian to do so in Florida's history    - PlainSight (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete An encyclopedia article makes sense if he gets elected to something (or maybe even second place depending on the election), but this reads almost like a blurb off his website. Thepisky (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Ah, those poor libertarians, when will they get people to take them seriously? For this guy, I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources rising higher than WP:ITEXISTS, so delete as failing WP:N. Note that he fails all the criteria at WP:POLITICIAN also. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per those of Awyllie/PlainSight's sources (below) that constitute significant coverage in reliable independent sources, including 97.3FM, 92.5FM, and (maybe) NPR . - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There are 13 references from 10 different sources, including redstate.com and politifact.com, which are both respected sources. He is included on United States Senate election in Florida, 2010 and United States Senate elections, 2010. PlainSight (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you cite the sources please? The mentions I saw on reliable sources did not constitute significant coverage per WP:N.  His name being mentioned in other Wikipedia articles proves nothing one way or another; even if he's validly mentioned in those articles it says nothing about whether he's entitled to a stand-alone article.  See also WP:POLITICIAN for why merely running for election doesn't get you a page.  (If it did, I'd have one!) - DustFormsWords (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional Sources -PlainSight (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * NPR http://topics.npr.org/article/0aEb9K5cEO7pm,
 * DemocraticUnderground http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x28421,
 * WFTV-TV Orlando http://www.wftv.com/news/22559424/detail.html,
 * NewsBlaze http://newsblaze.com/story/20100312053051zzzz.nb/topstory.html,
 * Politifact (St. Pete Times/Miami Herald joint venture): http://www.politifact.com/personalities/alexander-snitker/
 * Fox Business News (via YouTube) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOUvwlkK46c
 * USA Today http://content.usatoday.com/topics/article/People/Politicians,+Government+Officials,+Strategists/Governors,+Mayors/Mitt+Romney/02j81Lp1iGf7t/0
 * Comment - NPR does appear to be significant coverage in a reliable independent source, although it's behind a paywall. WFTV-TV isn't "significant coverage" - it's a vox pop.  Newsblaze is a direct reprint of Snitker's press release so isn't "independent".  Politifact is a directory listing.  The USA today link timed out.  Anything "via YouTube" is never a reliable source because the content can't be verified to be identical to that originally broadcast.  So that's ONE piece of coverage (NPR) sufficient for WP:N.  Give me one more and you've got me convinced. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Source Man you're tough. OK, how's this http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3892930/diamond-district-banks-threaten-housing ? -PlainSight (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, is this the right link? It sounds like they've just finished discussing Snitker; the clip you linked is discussing diamond district banks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Source And here's a non YouTube copy of the 97.3FM interview http://audio.thesky973.com/m/audio/28847768/the-drive-time-happy-hour.htm?q=snitker -PlainSight (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That one appears to be good, significant coverage in a reliable independent source per WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Source Another radio interview 92.5 FM Fox News Radio Ft. Myers, FL (interview starts at 16:30 http://www.stationcaster.com/player.php?s=25&c=128&f=42892 -PlainSight (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In as much as anyone still regards Fox News as an indpendent reliable source on politics, this appears to meet WP:N. I'll go change my vote accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The NPR and USA Today links are just redirects to NewsBlaze, which appears to be a libertarian or Tea Party-sponsored site, and therefore not neutral. The WFTV and Politifact references are basically just "he exists and is running for Senate".  That being said, the Fox Business News interview appears to be a legitimate reference.  Got another one to satisfy WP:V (*multiple* independent sources)?  NawlinWiki (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * NawlinWiki, I disagree that the WFTV reference was WP:ITEXISTS because he placed second overall in the poll, beating the sitting Governor of Florida and the Democrat front-runner. -PlainSight (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet More Sources
 * VoiceAmerica Talk Radio Interview http://www.voiceamerica.com/voiceamerica/vepisode.aspx?aid=44923,
 * 540 AM WDBO Noting second place finish in straw poll http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/02/tea-party-straw-poll-rubio-doc.html,
 * 97.3 FM WSKY Interview (via YouTube) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSD_x4KA-Mk
 * Comment - See my comments above about YouTube - can never be a reliable source. VoiceAmerica isn't a reliable source (see here for why).  The WDBO piece is a passing mention and does not constitute significant coverage. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to United States Senate election in Florida, 2010. This is the general rule required for candidates by WP:POLITICIAN. The sources are not sufficient for this guy to be notable in his own right. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I strongly believe that with the additional sources cited here, this article has met the WP:V and WP:N criteria from WP:POLITICIAN for candidates. I think this article stands on its own merit.  By way of comparison, Alexander Snitker meets the criteria far better than than does Bernie DeCastro, a rival candidate for Florida's U.S. Senate seat.  If these standards are to be set to an unresonably high level, they should at least be applied consistently. -PlainSight (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference with DeCastro is that he is separately notable for his reformed-criminal stuff. There is a ton of news coverage on him in that respect. Not so for Snitker. It is not wikipedia's job to give fair election coverage; it is our job to cover notable encyclopaedic subjects. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I challenge your assertion that "there is a ton of news coverage on (Bernie DeCastro) in that respect (reformed-criminal). Can you cite references? -PlainSight (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not here to debate DeCastro so your "challenge" is irrelevant. But as you ask, --Mkativerata (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken. DeCastro is irrelevent to this thread and your citations are solid. -PlainSight (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Mkativerata. The coverage appears to be entirely in the context of his candidacy, thus being a fail of WP:POLITICIAN. Ray  Talk 21:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is no distinction for seperate notability outside of a political campaign in WP:POLITICIAN, only that the sources are reliable and independent of the candidate. -PlainSight (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, needless to say, I find the coverage of the subject in the article to be insufficient to pass the GNG. Ray  Talk 22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ray, have you reviewed the additional sources listed above?
 * Yes, I now have. I hold to my redirect opinion. The interviews, while they represent press coverage, do not constitute significant secondary source reporting. With respect to the articles, this is rather obvious, you've got trivial mentions, and (my favorite) an article stating that the candidate's claim that nobody's heard of him is correct. With respect to the interviews: it is fairly common for local media to give candidates air time to make their case; this is not the same as thinking enough of their chances to writing (or speaking) at length about the candidate, for independent analysis. One just requires the giving of time as a public service, the other requires a real mental commitment. That is the essence of WP:N: reliable sources must care enough about somebody, think them sufficiently likely to be of note, as to spend a good chunk of time writing seriously about them. I would suggest that some of your sources could properly fit into the article about the Senate election, given your enthusiasm for information about this candidate. Best, Ray  Talk 01:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argument is now that the source has to "care" about somebody before that source can be considered significant? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?  There is nothing in WP:N that gives preference to articles over broadcast news interviews, or vice versa.  Also, I'm confident that this article has met WP:POLITICIAN which requires only "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."  - PlainSight (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of "significant" coverage is that it has to be "significant:" there has to be a nontrivial investment of energy, resulting in a nontrivial amount of secondary source coverage, before something can be said to have "significant coverage" in the context of WP:N. Ray  Talk 21:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ray, I fail to understand how several 15 to 30 minute interviews on AM and FM broadcast radio shows in various markets, or an interview on a cable news network can be classified as a trivial investment of energy.  You keep saying "my interpretation," however, I believe your interpretation is contrary to the very WP guidlines that you're citing.  If you can show me a WP guideline stating that radio or TV interviews are not considered significant under WP:N, I will support your vote. - PlainSight (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per Ray's reasoning. Sorry, but everything here seems to be in the context of his nomination, which I believe falls under WP:ONEEVENT, leaving WP:POLITICIAN as the last guideline to follow, resulting in a redirect decision. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)''
 * Comment A United States Senate campaign lasts for well over a year, and culminates with an extremely noteworthy election and political position. I don't see how a campaign for federal office could be classified as WP:ONEEVENT.  In the examples given at WP:ONEEVENT, it's clear that the guideline applies to a single brief instance, such as the Steve Bartman Incident where a split-second fan decision effected a baseball game. - PlainSight (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As noted, Snitker is the first LP to make it to the US Senate ballot in Florida's history. Very significant. 67.141.160.155 (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think the below links should eliminate any WP:N objections.  Also, I think the arguments for deletion under WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ONEEVENT have been solidily rebuked.  At this point, I think it's an easy KEEP. - PlainSight (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2010/04/us-senate-race-and-then-there-were-three.html
 * http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/story.aspx?storyid=130349
 * http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODQ4Yjg0YTc5NTI4NzM0NjI2ODAzZDVhODg2OWFhZDg=
 * http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2010/04/us-senate-race-and-then-there-were-three.html
 * http://www.flanews.com/index.php?s=snitker
 * 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.