Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Blakeman


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Blakeman

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This is a classic has-been, also-ran, wanna-be politician. His position on the Port Authority is not so significant that he's notable per WP:POLITICIAN. According to the New York State Elections website, Blakeman came in third in his most recent primary last month. In fact, as may be seen on page 7 of that pdf, he came in dead last in 58 counties, only coming in second in four counties out of 62. He failed to win even a single county, and he got less than 25 % of the vote. In 1998, he got more votes, as may be seen here, but was defeated by greater than a two-to-one margin for an obscure post. He never got on the ballot for Mayor of New York City. Just getting nominated or running for office is not sufiicient for notability. He's now run three times for three different offices, each time getting crushed. If he had done anything else that ranked for WP:GNG, I do not see anything. Several Google searches fail to find any reference other than the "also ran" or "third party" candidacy notice for the record. There is some evidence that persons with a conflict of interest have edited the article. In effect, this article acts as a resume page. He is on the ballot on November 2nd on a very minor line. We are not a free webhost for failed politicians. Delete. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per User Bearian, failed the ballot, low long term notability. Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Notwithstanding all of the words of praise for this gentleman from the nominator, I agree that he isn't notable enough for a stand alone article. Being one of the six Commissioners of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey isn't exactly the county library board, but it's not inherently notable either.  Mandsford 21:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to United States Senate special election in New York, 2010. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Quite clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN as Bearian said. There isn't enough notability, he hasn't achieved anything notable enough, I think. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 12:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above; subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. If he does end up elected, though, the question can be revisited. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Side comment, not affecting my previous decision to delete and redirect. The Daily News has 27 articles that mention Blakeman on its blog. Liz Benjamin's blog has another 28. Granted, many of them mention him as one of many in the Senate election, but there are substantive news articles on him, particularly earlier in the race when he was the designated Republican nominee and only one in the race. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (Shifted rationale below.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  03:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)) Extremely strong keep Responding per a request by Bearian on my talk page. I'll add clarification to my vote in a couple of days. My apologies if this sounds escapist, but the keep clarification is apparently pretty long, and I just don't have the time today to structure it. (by chance, if I'm not able to add the clarification in a couple of days, could the closing admin/editor leave a note on my talk page please?) Thanks and regards   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  05:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect. I see no reason to ever delete an article entirely when the issue is "only notable for one event" (or multiple similar events, in this case). What exactly is behind this determination to make it as difficult as possible to recreate an article if things change? Flatterworld (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect Not enough independent coverage in reliable third-party sources, as there is no mention of the subject by some of the references purported in the article and some sources are even dead, nor satisfying the criteria under WP:POLITICIAN to even warrant a merge with the target article. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  21:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to United States Senate special election in New York, 2010. There are no BLP concerns, so I agree with Flatterworld on this. Plausible search term. Location (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd be willing to keep open the discussion until after the results of the November 2nd vote prove me wrong or right. Say if he gets less than 10 %, can we delete? Bearian (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ten percent? If he gets less than the winning candidate, delete. Mandsford 12:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. For what it's worth, I have no objections to keeping this open a few more days. Location (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Extremely strong keep With due regards and respect for Bearian and other commentators in this deletion discussion, I'm confused about which notability/deletion guideline is being invoked when Bearian brings out the 10% clause? I'm sorry, but some of the deletion comments I've seen here are plainly without policy/guideline basis, the 10% clause inclusive, nomination exclusive (Bearian, please forgive me as I know these statements will sound affronting). Other statements qualifying on non-existent/wrong criteria; Mandsford ("If he gets less than the winning candidate, delete"), TeleComNasSprVen ("Not enough independent coverage in reliable third-party sources"), and some more I'll leave mention... Evidently, the individual is clearly notable. I've listed the points below:
 * The individual qualifies easily on WP:Politician. WP:Politician mentions, "Politicians who have held...sub-national (...provincewide) office, and members and former members of a...provincial legislature...are generally notable." Blakeman was the Presiding officer and Majority leader of the Nassau County Legislature, holding the positions from 1996 to 1999. The presiding officer of a county legislature is clearly considered notable as per our guidelines...
 * WP:Politician mentions that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are generally notable. From the year 1993 (three significant coverage that I randomly found in GNA for that year) till 2010 (randomly chosen multiple significant coverageNew York TimesNewsdayLong Island Business NewsNew York Daily NewsNY PostNewsDayNewsDay2), Bruce Blakeman has regularly received multiple significant coverage in media. Clearly notable!
 * WP:BASIC mentions and WP:GNG supports, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Even a seat-of-the-pants click on Google News Archives shows significant coverage on Bruce Blakeman almost every year from 1993 till 2010. Am I missing something out here?
 * With so many significant reliable news coverage, it doesn't matter whether Blakeman wins or loses in any of the current or future elections. One simply cannot and should not disregard such an enormous number of significant articles on Blakeman. The person is neither BLP1E or BIO1E. Sails above our notability criteria without an issue.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  05:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which part of "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges" says that being associated with a "county legislature" is notable? That's certainly not in "our" Guidelines. Mandsford 12:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He was ousted as a county legislator in 1999, after one term, see . Bearian (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While not all counties have completely reported yet, in my home of Albany County, Blakeman received 33 votes, or 0.03 %, of the vote yesterday,see here; in Buffalo's Erie County, he got 324 votes, official 0 %, but actually 0.13 %, see here, and he got 887 votes, or 0.24 votes in his home county, see here. He was by definition a fringe candidate. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Bearian. That wouldn't matter. If he was once a US County legislator, he qualifies without issues on our notability guidelines. Mandsford, some notes. A province is considered to be an administrative division...within a state. In the United States, you don't have provinces. Instead, at the same level, you have counties forming the symmetrical "local levels of government below the state (or federal territory); counties are used in 48 of the 50 states in the US."Search for 'county'Number of US Governments by Type and State. Anyway, this is irrespective of the fact that the individual peacefully qualifies on WP:GNG, as I've shown above. Thanks  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  18:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have yet to read any reference to an American county, parish or borough as a "province". The USA doesn't have provinces anywhere.  "Sub-national" means just that, one step below national.  Some nations (USA, Mexico, Brazil) are divided into states.  Others (Canada, France, China) refer to their subnational units as provinces.  I can't imagine equating the Province of British Columbia with Columbia County, Arkansas.  I'll be surprised if anyone agrees with  your theory.  Mandsford 21:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, county officers and authority directors have never been considered notable at Wikipedia, and almost always at AfD, their articles are deleted with very little debate. Mayors of larger cities are a well-respected special exception.  People who run again and again and again, each time with lower and lower percentages, as Blakeman has done, are de facto fringe candidates.  The final numbers are not in, but Blakeman probably got 1/4 of 1 % of the vote on Tuesday.  You can quibble if it's 10 % or 2 % or 1 % or 1/4 of 1 %.  At some point, he's a fringe candidate.  We can't let Wikipedia become a webhost for every jobseeker out there who can get a few hundred signatures.  Articles on Senate candidates who lose their primaries badly almost always are deleted, see Articles_for_deletion/Gail_Goode as an example in the race for this very seat.  I've asked at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people) to get a broader consensus. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I mentioned earlier dear Bearian, for a person who qualifies with flying colours on WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, the fact whether he was a fringe candidate or not doesn't matter. WP:BASIC overrides all the arguments I have seen till now. You have to realise that the closing administrator will not be able to disregard such over-weighing GNG of Blakeman. Frankly, and please don't mind this, I'm surprised at the deletionist perspective you are forwarding. I again apologise for my statements in advance. Sincere regards.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  18:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Another example from OUTCOMES is Articles for deletion/Antonia Bance (second nomination) ("Candidates for a national legislature/parliament or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability"). Likewise:

"City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favour keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo or London. Note, however, that this does not necessarily include borough councillors."

- OUTCOMES


 * I just think that using his past notoriety in the Long Island Newsday as an excuse to get his resume online here. Every article I've read in the Times and such news places as listed at Google News shows he's good at getting in the news -- but in each case, it's just a one-shot on the news. Yes, he keeps running for bigger offices, and the media dutifully reports it each time so it's on the record and so they can appear "fair and balanced" or whatever motto they use. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Bearian. Would this be of any relevance? Articles for deletion/Diane Yatauro; one example of how a presiding officer of the Nassau county escaped deletion, purely because she was Presiding Officer of Nassau legislature, considered a major county; apparently, this goes strongly against your logic... Also, in our case, I repeat that Blakeman has been additionally the Majority leader of the legislature.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  20:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have deleted Diane Yatauro, and her BLP is still technically unsourced, but you do have a good argument based on precedent. Perhaps the best statement about such past outcomes is that sometimes county-wide politicians on Long Island get to have articles.  I want to get a real discussion on such marginal cases. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Fringe candidates often attract local coverage in their failed candicacies. WP:POLITICIAN recognises this by saying, as a general rule, the articles should be redirected to the relevant constituency pages. Notability is about more than "coverage", that's why we have specific objective subject matter guidelines. I'm not seeing non-local coverage of his activities, which is what I'd need to see to say the coverage is significant.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * An example of a Rebublican who was not a fringe candidate is Scott M. Sipprelle, whose article, by the way, has plenty of sources to show independent notability. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2010 (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.