Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Garcia (professor)


 * 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, contributions) 22:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

David Garcia (professor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notabilty. Sources are all local and routine coverage of his unsuccessful political career. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Clearly fails WP:NPOLITICIAN (and WP:PROF). We generally delete articles of candidates created during a campaign. If her becomes governor (or even the Democrat nominee) we can restore the article. StAnselm (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, he was successful in becoming the Democratic nominee for statewide office in 2014, not entirely unsuccessful. Calibrador (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-winning candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he already qualified for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just be a candidate in it, to stake notability on the election itself. But this is referenced entirely to campaign coverage, with no evidence that he had preexisting notability for anything else — but campaign coverage is purely routine, because every candidate for any office could always show some of that, so it does not add up to passing WP:GNG unless it explodes to Christine O'Donnell proportions. And no, winning a primary does not constitute "winning an election" for our purposes, because that still just makes him a candidate and not an officeholder — and the fact that he's once again a candidate in a future election primary does not augment notability either. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete being a nominee for an office is almost never a sign of notability, and no exception to this genera rule is shown here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. As the above analysis makes clear, he does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. The case for WP:PROF is harder to be certain of, because he has such a common name that's impossible to get useful information out of a search, but the fact that he was an associate professor at a teaching college rather than a full professor at a research university doesn't make this look promising, and the failure of our article to say anything about his academic accomplishments beyond his job title is also a bad sign. Regardless, we don't have evidence for passing WP:PROF, so we can't use potential academic notability as a reason to keep the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2017 (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.