Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Potosnak


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ed Potosnak

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This is an article for a person who is a candidate for office but otherwise lacks notability. WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3 addresses this point specifically, that just being a nominee does not automatically confer notability. This article also fails the general notability guidelines; the refs in this article are to salary data, personal campaign websites, a general article about money going to gay candidates in the WBlade, a "where are they now?" blurb from a former membership, and so on. Minor, trivial coverage, absolutely routine for an unelected politician. Per the further explanation at WP:POLITICIAN on what to do with non-notables, a merger to the appropriate district page is a viable option to deletion. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least temporarily. I did not do any independent research, so I can't confirm or deny any of the local coverage criterion, but this seems like an extremely poor time to nominate this page for deletion.  This page has been up since March, and you wait until a week before the election to nominate for deletion?  And no, I'm not accusing anyone of being partisan or even arguing against your nomination, it just seems like a common sense decision to not even risk making Wikipedia look partisan.  To me at least, I'm not in a rush, and it makes way more sense to wait until next week to nominate this article. Bds69 (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a giant discussion about this over at WP:AN/I, search for the "FREEZE" header. A user proposed such a moratorium, but this was pretty much rejected by the community.  A week or so ago, I tried to take care of these non-notable politicians via simple redirects to the appropriate congressional district articles, but was summarily reverted this week on some of them.  So this could have been taken care of last week, but that's out of my hands now.  We have specific notability guidelines to consider; we don't, or shouldn't, consider real-world pressures.  If someone is notable, then keep.  If not, delete, merge, or redirect as appropriate.  Judge these on their own merits. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then that looks like the place for this - I skimmed through it and pretty much every solid point, as well as every logical fallacy has been made, so I have nothing more to add. Like I said, I personally don't see why we can't just wait a week, but no one ever accused Wikipedia admins/editors of being too focused on common sense. Bds69 (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP at this time. He was elected in the primary election. Flatterworld (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * COMMENT. This request is taking the wrong path. The proper path is to use the Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from templates, invite all those involved in both articles, and discuss the issue until consensus is reached. There's no need for a rush to judgement in any of these cases. (Note: One person requesting a Merge is not a consensus, see Ed Potosnak example.)That's why these Merge Templates exist, and that's why they're (normally) used when the issue involves (but not necessarily limited to) a claim that a person is notable only for one event. If consensus is reached, then an actual merge of material rather than a simple delete, or even a delete and redirect, is done. See Scott Harper for an example of this. See Ann Marie Buerkle for an example of the opposite, showing no history at all of what was in the previous article. That article was actually deleted, then a redirect was added after the fact. That's why it's wrong to do deletes in these cases, and that's been the consensus achieved in many, many AfD requests for various political candidates over the years. An example of a non-merge redirect is Lisa Johnston (AfD consensus here). That's simply wrong, as a nominee notable even for an event still has notable information - it's just a question of where it belongs. There is no evidence of any actual merge of material in her case, which makes the election article shockingly unbalanced (aka Undue Weight). There seems to be a lot of confusion on the definition of 'merge' in these discussions. It is not a synonym for a redirect. There are two steps, and both must be taken. Or, the article should be allowed to continue to exist, with 'improvement tags' added as needed. Flatterworld (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least temporarily. per Flatterworld and Bds69.  Man, what a waste of time and effort.  There is merely ONE editor, Tarc, that wants to flat out destroy the work of many editors 7 days before Election Day.  The information is going to be destroyed for no good reason other than Tarc wants to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.  Also, the discussion that Tarc refers to above as "pretty much rejected by the community" is a complete mischaracterization of the discussion.  The concensus was no concensus.  As to this particular article, just wait one week and then after Election Day there will be time to decide which articles are to be deleted and which ones will be merged.  There is no harm to Wikipedia is waiting, but there is huge potential harm to Wikipedia in destroying editor's work prematurely.  It makes Wikipedia look like a partisan free for all.--InaMaka (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. News links above show sufficient coverage. Plus he is appearing on hundreds of thousands of ballots.  I think WP:POLITICIAN (which is only a guideline anyway) should be changed so that a major-party nominee for Congress is generally considered notable.  In the interim, let's not disappear this and the related articles.  (Second choice:  Merge and redirect.)  Neutron (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need to revisit POLITICIAN after the election. The way it is currently written, it has a distinct inherent bias. It favors the incumbent candidate, which is clearly taking a political position.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is the fourth candidate that Tarc has nominated during this final week of the election and the fifth one that I've seen. I've gone through and shown how the other four candidates clearly meet the GNG.  POLITICIAN is a secondary guideline to be followed when the primary GNG criteria is not met.  A quick websearch will show that Ed, just like the other candidates nominated by Tarc, has plenty of reliable sources covering him in detail.  These Major party candidates for national positions get substantial coverage both locally and nationally (and in some cases internationally.)  Apllying POLITICIAN is the wrong criteria as the candidates clearly meet GNG.  Furthermore, as mentioned above, the systemic bias against candidates as compared to incumbents is a POV and needs to change.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This opinion is such a mess it is hard to know where to begin. First off, "bias against candidates as compared to incumbents" ?  Um, yea...the person who already has a seat in the flipping Congress of the United States is unquestionably notable.  To suggest that there is biased because there is an article for him and not automatically for all challengers is quite frankly unbelievable. Next, "A quick websearch" finds the sources that are presently in the article;
 * PoliticaltickerNJ. questionable WP:RS
 * It's PolitickerNJ, and it is used as a source in dozens if not hundreds of New Jersey-related articles, and seems to regarded by people who regularly edit NJ-related political articles (including me) as a reliable source for news. The site also includes columns and blogs, for which you would have an argument, but this is a news article. Neutron (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * www.cabaret-theatre.org, a "where are they now?" blurb for a former member
 * a source to confirm his Rutgers Glee Club presidency
 * Triangle Coalition bio, essentially a CV
 * congressional staff salary data
 * Washington Blade, general article about gay candidates and campaign cash, not in-depth overage of the subject.
 * outinjersey.net, again, a general article about the Stonewall Dems funding gay candidates
 * There is nothing in there that meets the notability guidelines. I am tired of these false accusations and vague handwaving at "keeps its notable!", when both are demonstrably false. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, the articles listed are the not the only one around, in fact according to Google, there are over 41,000 articles on Ed Potosnak Congress. Some of them include (not using any one source more than once):
 * The Star Ledger
 * WSLS TV
 * Huffington Post in depth on Ed
 * NJ today on Ed
 * Politico
 * Fox news bio
 * There is plenty of coverage on this guy, the fact that the article does not include them does not mean that it is a quick easy search to find other sources/discussion. The fact that there are 41K articles indicates a certain level of recognition/coverage.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You have found generic, cut n pasted bios and a few casual name-drops. Who are you trying to kid here? Tarc (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 05:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 05:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2010 per WP:POLITICIAN. Coverage is purely in the context of the electoral cycle, amounting to news and not really in-depth coverage - that is to say, insufficient to meet GNG, so WP:POLITICIAN is controlling. Ray  Talk 05:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Since this AfD will not close prior to the election date, and this is a contested race, I'm striking my comment in anticipation of the result. Ray  Talk 06:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Being part of an "electoral cycle" is no different than a sports season or what have you. The fact is that there are over 41K ghits for Ed.  Coverage is dedicated to him.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I favor a very low bar for active politicans for office as a public service. At the congressional level, third party coverage is typically massive and these sorts of challenges strike me as being sometimes partisan in motivation. I'm not saying that this is the case here, only that the proximity of the election should make us all move very slowly on any deletion decision. Carrite (talk) 21:59, 30 October 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.