Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cary Capparelli


 * 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   no consensus. There is no agreement as to whether or not the subject is notable, and there are too many comments to justify relisting again, hence this closure. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cary Capparelli

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

As an unsuccessful past political candidate, does not, in my opinion, meet the suggestions for established notability as outlined at WP:POLITICIAN. While the subject seems to have had an interesting life thus far, I don't believe this autobiography provides sufficient evidence of notability. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca  talk 18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable both as a politician and as a businessman. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject is not exceptional for any one thing, but has been noticed for several - race car driver, businessman/race car organizer, politician.  Overall, the level of coverage is sufficient to warrant inclusion in my opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Honest question: shouldn't a subject be notable according to at least one of the BLP notability guidelines, not merely kinda notable in multiple of them? Qqqqqq (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The guidelines are open to (slight) interpretation, as they are intended to be descriptive rather than proscriptive. In this case, I feel the subject meets the general criteria: "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."  The specific criteria are automatic qualifiers, but not meeting any of them isn't an automatic disqualifier.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Off-topic now, but meeting the criteria isn't an automatic qualifier. Quoting WP:NOTE: Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. Sancho 06:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't this autobiography be merged into or redirected to Illinois's 5th congressional district special election, 2009? I still don't think a standalone article is required, but this likely would be better than simply deleting. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Subject appears to barely meet the general criteria listed at WP:N and WP:BIO. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - None of the sources solidly demonstrate notability. I think his best shot is on the race car angle if there is anything to demostrate that the races he won were significant.  His political career is a footnote.  And as a businessperson, there is nothing to indicate notability.  Just being a CEO of your own business doesn't count for anything unless the firm is genuinely notable. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare)  16:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment. The handful of Gnews hits Thaddeus pointed out don't show me notability. First hit was a minor appointment to a board that pays $20K a year and didn't get much better from there. At this point, I can't find the notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2009 (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.