Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Casavis


 * 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) 06:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

David Casavis

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable candidate for local office. Lacks GNews and GHITS of substance to support article. Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO.  ttonyb (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Can't find significant coverage of him in reliable sources.  GB fan  talk 22:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * RETAIN David Casavis has earned a place on the ballot by virtue of collecting thousands of signatures from NYC voters. So he is a valid candidate by virtue of New York Election Law. Removing this article because Casavis isn't sufficiently covered by mainstream media or because someone finds him "non-notable" is equivalent to supporting his opponent and is a violation of campaign finance laws that could risk Wikipedia's 501c status. A statement that he is non-notable is subjective. Based on his ballot status he is note-worthy. Any discussion of the 2009 race for Manhattan Borough President is incomplete and inaccurate without reference to Casavis.    --ImmoveableGroove (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC) — ImmoveableGroove (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wikpedia is not the place for political campaigns to take place. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that has articles on notable subjects.  You are correct that notability is subjective and the English Wikipedia has detailed what makes someone notable.  Notability on Wikipedia starts off with the Notability guideline that is the overarching guideline for all articles.  This is then refined for people, Notability (people).  In that guideline there is even a specific section about politicians, WP:POLITICIAN.  None of the reasons you say he is notable are included in any of these guidelines.  For the most part notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned comes down to one thing, significant coverage in reliable sources.  I have looked and I can not find significant coverage of Casavis in reliable sources.  If you are able to find some, let me know and I will reevaluate my opinion based on the new information.  I don't think Wikipedia's 501c status is threatened because someone who does not meet the long established notability guidelines that all articles are subject to, is not included.   GB fan  talk 13:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – GB fan, well put and needless to say I agree with you. I am always amazed at the number of people that think that one or another Wikipedia guideline amounts to something that is actionable in the legal system.  I am even more amazed at the misinterpretation of established laws by laypersons. ImmoveableGroove I suggest you read  The Hoover Institution-Campaign Finance.  I also suggest you read No legal threats, your comment treads a bit too close to a violation of that policy.  Let us remember that lack is notability is the issue at hand.  I will repeat, notability needs to be established to survive this AfD.   ttonyb  (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * RETAIN From what I can tell, the campaign has only begun, but the candidate in question is cited in many news sources. Just Googling brings up a couple of pages. Perhaps he is not a household word over in GB, but here in NYC he is an established candidate with a major party.Sallieparker (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – True there are a few pages of hits; however, as stated in the nomination, the hits lack substance. They are short references and entries in blogs. He may be an established candidate in NYC, but it appears he is lacking the  notability to support an article.  ttonyb  (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "'RETAIN'" This article should be retained and linked to the existing wikipedia article about the office of the borough president.  The borough president wikipedia entry details how the position has had its significant powers eroded over time.  However, the entry fails to mention that there is an ongoing controversy about whether the office should exist at all.  This case has been made by Mr. Casavis, by editorial writers of the New York Daily News and New York Post, and, previously, by Barry Popik.  This point of view is unusual enough to deserve attention and Mr. Casavis merits an entry himself and a link to a proposed new controversy section of the borough president article along with Barry Popik (already the subject of a wikipedia entry), for their respective roles in the continuing debate.Konakid04  (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC) — Konakid04 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment – The existence of another article (i.e., Barry Popik) is not a justification for existence of this article. Each article must stand on its own merit and satisfy Wikipedia criteria for inclusion.


 * Retain a search on Gotham Gazette alone returns 10 articles that reference Casavis. If you don't think Gotham Gazette is a major publication then you aren't familiar with politics and government in New York.  A web search returns 1800 articles and while of course many are things like Facebook and minor media, the first page alone shows media such as New York Press, NBCNewYork.com and Politickerny.com. Should Wikipedia have thorough coverage of politics where thoughtful people can get a complete picture or should it present only a superficial picture that one could get from a soundbite on the 6:00 news? ImmoveableGroove (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC) — ImmoveableGroove (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment – A search on ("David Casavis" "Gotham Gazette") only shows one article and a Google web search of ("David Casavis") only show 252. (see ) As you indicated the majority of articles are "things like Facebook and minor media".  In addition, the other articles do not amount to significant coverage. If you can provide specific evidence the article meets the criteria in WP:POLITICIAN it will be retained.   ttonyb  (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete One thing he is certainly not, and that is a noted scholar. He doesn't have a doctorate. He has no academic publications. He's taught a course as an adjunct at a few colleges. He has written a few articles, and a large number of book reviews. As for politics: according to the article, he ran for a minor municipal office because nobody else in his party  was willing, and he lost badly.  He's running for another municipal office under about the same conditions.  If by any miracle he wins, he might become notable. But  I notice the people who want to "retain" thearticle are saying, imo correctly, that the office he is running for isn't even very important This is a very highly promotional article, very close to a G11, and even taking the claims at their face value, he isn't notable. Wikipedia  is not the place for political advertising.    DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 5 October 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.