Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Bovalino


 * 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) 04:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Frank Bovalino

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Also written by someone with a POV, see this thread on my talk page. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I have been attempting to add and update pages for this year’s PA State House candidates, but two have so far been deleted. The reasoning behind these deletions appears to be that the Wikipedia editors do not think PA House candidates are important enough to qualify for a Wikipedia page.

I take issue with this decision for several reasons. First of all, members of the State House of Representatives are responsible for approving multi-billion dollar budgets that impact all residents of the state they serve. They decide education policy, welfare policy, environmental policy and many other policies that impact all of us. So it is important for voters to know as much as possible about who they are electing. As I’m sure you would agree, Wikipedia serves as an important source of information nowadays, and many voters may find it useful to read about their State House candidate before going to the polls.

Second, it seems undemocratic for Wikipedia to decide that some candidates for office are not worth highlighting and others (namely incumbents) deserve a Wikipedia page. We all know incumbents have a distinct advantage when running for office, and your decision to deny challengers on so-called “lower” levels of office a Wikipedia page continues that unfortunate trend. By deleting these pages, you are helping incumbents retain their elected position without giving challengers a fair chance to prove their worth.

I find this unfortunate and would like a better explanation of why the pages I am posted continue to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.58.88 (talk • contribs) 18:38 23 July 2010
 * Wikipedia is not not a place for promotion, for the incumbent candidates or the new candidates. If incumbents have pages that are promotional in nature, then those pages should be edited to make them conform to our WP:NPOV guidelines. If the only content that you are adding is from the candidates' websites, then there is no extra information for users to find on Wikipedia that they could not find on the candidates' webpages with a reasonable search. In order to make sure that we present reliable, neutral information to our readers, our notability requirements require that there be multiple (usually at least 2) reliable sources independent of the person/campaign itself. This does not mean that all candidates for positions at the particular level should not have a page; in fact, sometimes enough sourcing can be found to show that the person is indeed notable. But until that sourcing is available, there should not be a Wikipedia article. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I added a few sources to the article but I still don't think he qualifies as notable per Wikipedia's standards. Comment to the person who asked why his/her pages keep getting deleted, I would suggest that he/she read the Wikipedia policies at WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. There is a simple rule for qualifying for a Wikipedia page: the subject has to be "notable," not according to our subjective opinions here, but as determined by significant reporting about the subject by independent reliable sources. That means newspaper articles or other reporting about the person (actually ABOUT them, not just mentioning them or quoting a sentence from them). This can be a source of frustration for those who support challengers, because incumbents almost always pass the notability test while challengers frequently don't. Wikipedia does not exist to provide balanced electoral coverage; that kind of thing is provided by smartvoter.com or the official ballot information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and in order to be listed here a subject must have demonstrated notability. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. As a candidate for office he clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Nothing else about him seems notable either wrt wiki policies. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. "An unelected candidate for political office" always fails WP:POLITICIAN and I have found no other information to suggest general notability.  Blue Rasberry  02:56, 2 August 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.