Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Caforio


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Bryan Caforio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Article subject is a congressional candidate who has never held elective office and who fails to meet WP:GNG apart from political candidacy. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete Completely disagree with deleting. The decision was already made that this article meets the notability criteria. Caforio is not a candidate for a minor position in an small city, but rather a candidate for U.S. House of Representatives in a hotly contested election year. His candidacy is being covered by the L.A. Times. Removing the article would be viewed as politically motivated and a form of censorship. In addition, Caforio is notable for being a U.S. collegiate mock trial champion, not once but twice. KentSteelman (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see point #3 under WP:POLITICIAN, which states: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." It looks to me like the only significant coverage Caforio has received is in regards to his congressional candidacy, which would fail WP:POLITICIAN. I don't think the mock trial championship, covered only in the college newspaper The Daily Bruin, is enough to pass notability requirements. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If by "The decision was already made that this article meets the notability criteria" you mean the edit where I deleted the speedy deletion notice, no, that's not a determination that the article is sufficiently notable. It was just my finding that the article did not meet the requirements for the WP:SPEEDY deletion process, which
 * merely requires a claim of significance, which is a lower bar than the notability standard;
 * is just the opinion of one editor (me), and doesn't override a consensus that may form. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2016. I find it odd that this candidate isn't presently mentioned there. I also agree with Champaign Supernova that the individual does not presently meet GNG. He may or may not ever reach that level, hence the redirect to the relevant section of the election article as he has had some coverage in the context of his campaign and is a reasonable search term. This is neither "politically motivated" nor "a form of censorship." I've created redirects for several 2016 candidates who don't presently meet GNG (Jimmy Panetta is one redirected to this page). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't understand what Muboshgu is talking about. Here's what I just saw on United States House of Representatives elections, 2016:

Steve Knight (Republican)[134] Bryan Caforio (Democratic)[135] Jeffrey Moffatt (Republican)[136] Lou Vince (Democratic)[137]

In addition, notability is clear from the fact that the Los Angeles Times has followed his candidacy and references in the article are from that newspaper" 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'. Given that there is no agreement here, the article should stay.

KentSteelman (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the page I linked: United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2016, where he isn't mentioned at all. Notability is not "clear" as the LA Times has mentioned him, but I do not agree that they've given him "significant coverage". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Local media have an obligation to cover local elections taking place in their own local coverage area, so coverage of a candidate in that context falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot confer the passage of WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect as indicated by Muboshgu, per WP:BLP1E. His candidacy is getting coverage, but basically in the local press (LA Times is local to his candidacy). Mock trial coverage shown is just his own school's paper; the championship was not for him but for the team. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I think its time we changed the rule, and allowed that in a two party system the candidate of each party for national office is sufficiently notable. But I would be much more skeptical of candidates who have not yet won their party's nomination,as is the case here. They don't become of more than local interest until they do win the primary, for only then is it clear that their election might change the balance of power in the legislature.   DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - What DGG proposes couldn't apply exactly in this case, as there are not party nominations, per se. California uses a Top Two system - the top two vote getters from the primary, regardless of party, go to the general election. This means that the final race can be two members of the same party. Parties are specifically barred from "nominating" anyone, although they can endorse a candidate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 *  Do Not Delete Muboshgu (talk) Really, if you had looked at that section you would have seen that the last time United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2016 for the 25th district was updated was in mid-year 2015, and you know from the article about Caforio that he declared his candidacy at the end of 2015, as clearly documented in the Los Angeles Times (an internationally recognized newspaper, not a "local" rag.) It would have taken less time to update it than to write about how "odd" it is here. I just updated the site with the info about Caforio entering the race and Gutzeit withdrawing from the race, and it took me 2 minutes.


 * Referring to the Los Angeles Times as a "local" reference is misguided. The LA Times is, according to Wikipedia the 4th largest US newspaper by circulation and therefore represents the "significant coverage":
 * Rank # 4	Los Angeles Times	Los Angeles	California	circulation: 653,868	Tribune Publishing


 * There is absolutely no pressing need to delete the Caforio article now. We have a disagreement, and it therefore should not be deleted, particularly since the article is very well referenced. The California primary takes place June 7th, less than three months from now. I suggest everyone just follow good Wikipedia advice, back away and breathe deeply until then. No hurry. KentSteelman (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * While the Times has a wide circulation, it is LA based and is expected to cover local elections just like any other paper; the district the campaign is for is in good part within Los Angeles county. This is not indicative of import the way that a similar-sized paper not local to the election (say, The Chicago Tribune) offering a couple-dozen sentences on his candidacy would be. --13:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing you have said has changed my !vote, because nothing you've said has argued that he has received "significant" coverage. One piece in the local newspaper, no matter how big that paper is, is not significant coverage. Another example: Josh Gottheimer is a candidate for Congress this cycle, and I created his article this cycle. A previous version was deleted in 2014 despite having a reference from The New York Times. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As yet unelected candidates for office do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of his candidacy (e.g. having preexisting notability as a writer, an athlete, an actor, etc.), then he has to win the election, not just run for it, to qualify for a Wikipedia article. And local media covering the campaign does not get him over the bar, because local media have an obligation to cover local politics — so such coverage is merely routine and cannot confer notability. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for now at best as he's still questionable for the applicable politicians notability. SwisterTwister   talk  03:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete candidates for the United States house are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - under the current guidelines, does not pass notability criteria.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Caforio is notable for his U.S. mock trial championships and All-American status alone. Just because the references to his mock trial leadership and wins so far are local newspapers, it doesn't mean that wasn't covered elsewhere, and Wikipedia guidelines say such an article should be allotted time to provide more references, not be deleted. Caforio was also highlighted in the New York Times today more as a spokesman for the people affected by the disaster caused of the Aliso Canyon gas leak. I can imagine SoCal Gas (see: Southern California Gas Company) would love to have the article about Caforio deleted, but let's not. Bruriyah (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No guideline on Wikipedia says a U.S. mock trial championship or status as an "All-American" mock trial lawyer grants notability. A lack of sources on this person suggests why that is the case. You have to show us where it was covered, because it doesn't seem to have been covered anywhere else. Regarding the NYT story you mention, he seems like a bit player in a story on a different subject. It's not in depth coverage of him. I can imagine SoCal Gas couldn't care less about whether or not Caforio has a Wikipedia article. It's not a factor here because Wikipedia does not exist to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 31 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.