Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Toledano


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Ben Toledano

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable politician who was a losing U.S. Senate candidate. Sources:
 * 1/13 are not independent
 * 2 is routinely expected of candidates
 * 3/5/6/8 are not SIGCOV (some of them brief mentions)
 * 4 is WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL
 * 7 is about someone winning an award, but no mention whatsoever of Toledano.
 * 10 is directory
 * 11/12 are news articles written by him
 * 9 is probably the only one that can count towards GNG, but we need two or more for GNG to give it an article.

Meanwhile, I don't see much sufficient evidence that WP:AUTHOR and WP:JOURNALIST are satisfied enough for to confer independent notability outside of the 1972 United States Senate election in Louisiana.

Most importantly, the page was created by a serial copyright violater whose pages are being presumptively deleted as we speak. And that doesn't even count the fact that this was recreated after it was deleted at AFD under a sightly different name. While 1972 United States Senate election in Louisiana could make a good redirect target, I'd argue against keeping the history due to WP:PCC. ミラP 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete: per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Marquardtika (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails NPOL and isn't notable outside of the senate campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. As always, people are not automatically eligible for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — but this does not make any credible claim that he had preexisting notability for other reasons, and is not referenced well enough to demonstrate a reason why his candidacies could be claimed as more special than other people's candidacies. Most of the footnotes are either unreliable sources or glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, not sources that are substantively about him for the purposes of making him notable — and the only source that is about him in any non-trivial way is an article in the real estate section "covering" him only in the context of owning a home, not a news article about him accomplishing anything encyclopedically significant. GNG does not just count up the number of sources and keep anything that happens to surpass an arbitrary number — it also takes into account the context of what the person is getting coverage for, and owning a house is not an "inherently" noteworthy context. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2019 (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.