Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew U. D. Straw (2nd nomination)


 * 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. WP:RFPP for salt requests Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Andrew U. D. Straw
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails WP:GNG. To the extent this person has any real encyclopedic notability, it is because of bad press about him, which is mostly local to whatever state he happens to be practicing in at the time. Bbb23 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - one of many non-notable political candidates/advocates wanting attention. Atsme 📞📧 14:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lack of notability. Subject's political campaigns have not seemed to have brought him to a level that meets our guidelines for notability as a politician. While he has been a lawyer, I haven't seen the in-depth coverage of him indicating that he has had some significant impact. And the political party he started is small enough that it hasn't a Wikipedia page, and I've seen no sign that it's gotten anyone elected to public office. -Nat Gertler (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The first part of your last sentence doesn't parse. I think you meant to say that the party is so small it doesn't have a Wikipeda page?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The devil goes through and removes the nots from my postings! --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lack of independent, reliable, secondary sources, with no understanding of what secondary sources are. The article is likely self-authored, and if not, was written by someone with a conflict of interest, who wants to use Wikipedia to Right Great Wrongs. No one is entitled to an article on Wikipedia.  Kablammo (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Being the founder of a minor political party could potentially get him a Wikipedia article if that were the context the sources were covering him in — but as written, this is based on a mix of primary sources that cannot assist notability at all (his campaign committee's standard FEC filing, which doesn't assist notability since every candidate has one), WP:ROUTINE coverage in the context of unsuccessful election candidacies (and not enough of that to make him more notable than the norm on the basis of having received more coverage than every other unsuccessful candidate could always show), and some personal stuff that runs afoul of WP:PERP (criminal or malpractice allegations do not get a person into Wikipedia in and of themselves if they weren't already notable enough for an article independently of that.) None of the coverage here is about his role as founder of a political party per se, so he's not entitled to an automatic inclusion freebie on that basis just because it's been claimed — and none of what the media coverage is covering him for constitutes a notability claim at all, nor is any of that coverage contextually far enough beyond the purely local to satisfy WP:GNG on "just because media coverage exists" grounds. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The topic here is a biography. WP:ROUTINE is a notability guideline for events.  The policy for inclusion of sources is WP:Verifiability.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While he may have been pointing to the wrong page, he is reflecting a practiced standard for dealing with notability among politicians, that the basic coverage that is generally given a candidate is not sufficient for notability in itself. You can see this reflected at WP:POLOUTCOMES, "Losing candidates for office below the national level who are otherwise non-notable are generally deleted". --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ROUTINE is not a question of whether the Wikipedia article's subject is a person or an event; it's a question of the context in which the media coverage is being given. Note, for example, that ROUTINE includes examples such as paid-inclusion wedding notices and crime logs and "local person wins local award", which are types of "coverage" that pertain to people. Coverage of people, within the context of events that don't confer notability, does fall under ROUTINE, because ROUTINE is a measure of the context in which the subject's RS-verifiability is occurring, not just of what class of thing the article's base topic is. The notability guideline for "events" does not only speak to the notability or non-notability of an event as a topic of an event article — it does also speak to the inclusion-worthiness of people who were involved in the events, such as the ancient wikiwar about whether Wikipedia should maintain a standalone biography of every individual person who died in the 9/11 attacks just because The New York Times obituaried them all. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think I have ever seen someone so totally not notable. He not only has never won any election, he seems to have never even won a nomination. That would not make him notable, but loosing nominations makes him even less so. In fact, he often doesn't make it to the primary because he can not get enough signatures on a petition. In one case he filled a petition with 1 signature. He is the extreme of non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Losing nominations does not cause someone to become less notable. Your personal opinion of a topic is not what defines Wikipedia notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Competing for nominations does not cause somebody to become notable in the first place. Sure, losing a nomination contest wouldn't cause a person to become less notable than he already was — Yolande James did not lose her existing notability as a provincial legislator just because she lost a nomination to Emmanuella Lambropoulos when she tried to go federal — but what's lacking here is properly sourced evidence that Straw had any preexisting notability for any other reason in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt. Not notable and unlikely to become notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree the article should be salted, given the unwillingness by the author to ignore the requirements for acceptable articles. Kablammo (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the striking weakness of the arguments in this AfD, including the indirect evidence that there is sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy GNG, a no consensus close here is still within bounds. Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The candidate clearly doesn't meet NPOL, and there's no other case presented for notability. The article describes him as an incompetent lawyer and an incompetent political candidate, and makes no other claims. Power~enwiki (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete- lack of reliable independent sourcing beyond the run-of-the-mill coverage that all such low-key unsuccessful candidates get. Reyk  YO!  08:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - While I generally support retaining all articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections out of hand, without regard to size or ideology, I am not persuaded that the so-called Disability Party of this individual is a real thing. Clear SNG - POLITICIAN fail. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete it seems he's most notable for failing to be notable enough to getting on a primary ballot, i.e. he's not notable. I'm 99% sure this was also created by a WP:SPA account, which only seems to edit articles related to this subject (e.g. his own, those judges on his lawsuits, etc) for WP:PROMOTION. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2017 (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.