Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augustus Sol Invictus


 * 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. Or rather, weak keep, as most participants agree that this is a borderline case, but on the whole most would rather err on the side of inclusion.  Sandstein  14:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Augustus Sol Invictus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fringe political candidate without significant coverage in independent sources. Appears to fail WP:NN Dressingforasalad (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  20:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  20:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep/Neutral -- He's as fringe as fringe gets, to be sure, and fails part 1 of WP:NPOL in that he holds/has held no office. Still, he has received a substantial amount of coverage in independent sources, although the coverage is mostly focused on his antics. I am willing to reconsider my !vote upon hearing from others. GABHello! 20:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The bulk of the coverage, and most of the references in the article, seem to be about one event (goat blood drinking), which I think also puts the article into WP:BLP1E territory. Dressingforasalad (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. GABHello! 21:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Week keep - Just enough RS coverage  (e.g. BBC, Financial Post, Associated Press) outside of local media to cross the WP:GNG bar.--JayJasper (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I'm just not seeing it. Coverage is there, but it seems to fall under WP:BLP1E with the remainder being incidental, or political gossip. Much of the coverage is based on self-aggrandizement, which should be weighed more cautiously. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - over 2000 articles have been mentioned him in the last year, he is presently a public candidate for office. People come to Wikipedia to get information on people just like him.   Stealthepiscopalian (talk) Stealthepiscopalian 01:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Stealthepiscopalian
 * Since this has been nominated for deletion, we can't just take your word for it. Some of these sources will need to be assessed and included in the article. The G-hit count is moderatly high, but that's irrelevant. Many of the sources I see are mentions of newsworthy mid-profile clients he's taken, such as Marcus Faella or David Damus, and the overwhelming majority are from an early October 2015 news blitz about the goat sacrifice thing. Being a defense attorney for semi-notable cases doesn't itself confer notability, per WP:NOTINHERITED, so sources still need to be about Invictus. Almost anyone can run for office, so candidates still need to meet WP:NPOL or similar notability guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep People come to Wikipedia to get reliable information about people in the news. He's not just running for office but has the Libertarian party nomination.  I see the point about historical notability, and if a year or two from now he fades from interest I can see renominating this article, but at the moment removing it seems unwarranted. Current events are a critical part of Wikipedia.Choronzonclub (talk)Choronzonclub (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Choronzonclub
 * See What Wikipedia is not and WP:INTHENEWS. Useful or not, it still has to meet notability guidelines and other policies. Grayfell (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - He made another headline today. Even if the article is deleted, I've little doubt it will be re-added soon after. Vael Victus  03:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep – I've seen quite a few articles about him at this point, and further research led me to his page and its AfD. There are so many aspects to this story that add up to at least marginal notability.  Further, WP is currently a useful (and assumedly neutral) repository of this info, so it would be a shame to lose.  I would echo Choronzonclub, above, as to renomination if he fades in a year or so, hence my vote of Weak Keep.  &mdash;  VoxLuna  ☾ orbitland   09:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Neutral/Weak Delete - The fact that this person is an unelected candidate doesn't fail the article on WP:NPOL because he has had some coverage supported by sources significant enough to provide a degree of notability. My main concern with the article is that it shouldn't be a vehicle for self-aggrandizement, as Greyfell wrote. In view of the fact that he seems to be on a political campaign at present, that's an important and current concern. Parts of the article fail WP:NPOV and either have no sources or have the person himself as the source.  With those elements taken out, I don't believe the article has much left. If it is retained, that must be resolved.  I agree that it's possible the article might be added again after deletion, but that is not a reason to keep it. At this moment in time, I fall very slightly on the side of deletion but am primarily Neutral. Twistlethrop (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with JayJasper. The coverage in reliable sources is sufficient for notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2016 (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.