Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Concepcion (youth politician)


 * 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. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 14:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Gary Concepcion (youth politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Failing WP:GNG. Possible WP:COI editing. Largely unsourced. This appears to be the only editorial coverage about the individual. No mention of the alleged offices and positions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject passes WP:GNG. Subject is mentioned in independent, reliable sources. At least one office is referenced. Added Reftag for additional sources. More references can be added once retrieved or once new sources become available. There is enough proof that is a genuine and authentic article through the current references and photos. Subject is also unique. WP:GNG states that being in a number of third party publications, independent of the subject satisfies it. User talk:Qualitee123 13:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete if we can't just speedy delete it. The subject fails WP:GNG and there is only one non-primary source, more or less a "local boy does the right thing type article", and the "office" held is a youth position that clearly fails WP:NPOL. Additionally the number of "own work" photos, including those of awards and certificates that only the subject would be in possession of, in the article damn near confirms it's an WP:AUTOBIO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment in light of Onel5969's comments I say we Speedy Delete and WP:SALT. No need to deliberate on an article thats already been deleted multiple times. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Gary Concepcion has already been salted - this is effectively a title that circumvents the salt. I think a proper AfD decision should be appropriate to settle this for now and the future. We can always WP:SNOW if there's broad consensus in a day or two. I wouldn't know which CSD to use to be honest. It's not really irreparable promo, there is a credible claim of significance, it's not a hoax or vandalism. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt the article. This COI editor has recreated this same article half a dozen times in two days. Clearly fails notability criteria.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt, per . -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly not notable. --Michig (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete with salt. Nothing stated here passes WP:NPOL at all, so his only basis for inclusion would be if he could be shown to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing, but the overwhelming majority of the references here are primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all. People do not get into Wikipedia by having staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers, or self-published campaign literature, or mentions in meeting minutes — reliable sources means media coverage, not just any document you can find that happens to have his name in it, but the only reference here that is actually a reliable source is a piece of purely local media coverage in a non-notable context. GNG is not automatically passed the moment a person has gotten their name into their local media once — if it were, we'd have to keep an article about every single person who was ever president of a church bake sale committee, and every single person who ever had a piece of human interest coverage written about them for having an unusual number of toes. Rather, GNG tests for the volume, depth, range and context of the coverage, and nothing here passes those tests at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete-the page Gary Concepcion has been salted. I accidentally put a previously afd on Gary Concepcion (politician) thinking this was AFD but not yet. Wgolf (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Referencing significantly improved since discussions. More article improvement tags added too.Qualitee123 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me summarise the sources one by one in the order they are shown as of now: 1) Facebook post by local police (local interest story), 2) Local media report about a possible crime (local interest story), 3) Council publication - introduction of youth council candidates (candidates are not inherently notable), 4) same as 3, 5) Council meeting minutes (does not support notability), 6) more council meeting minutes, 7) council meeting minutes, 8) council press release about a public awareness film (does not mention subject), 9) no mention of subject, 10) Youtube video (actually says "unavailable" and does not play for me, 11) another Youtube video that does not play, 12) press kit related to 8. Has a picture of the subject but no mention, 13) related to 8. Subject briefly seen, but no mention, 14) youth awareness video, subject has a short speaking part as part of a panel of other teenagers, 15) repeat of 1, 16) repeat of 2, 17) talks about police cadets in general, no mention of subject, 18) talks about ambulance service in general, no mention of subject, 19) no mention of subject, 20) broken link, 21) broken link, 22) broken link, 23) no mention of subject.
 * In summary (not counting dupes): there is 1 local media editorial editorial coverage, 1 police social media release, 1 youth council candidate pamphlet, 3 meeting minutes, 7 sources that don't mention the candidate (other than possibly a picture without name attribution), 1 mention in passing. 4 broken reference. This still is unlikely to pass "significant coverage" for WP:GNG.
 * I assume for a minute that you are writing about yourself. Don't get me wrong: you have done great things in your local community and what you have done is admirable. It really is. Notability guidelines are based on Wikipedia community consensus and they set a fairly high bar. This says nothing about your achievements. Take this as an example: there is a Wikipedia article about the mayor of Leicester, but there aren't any about his two deputies. The Chief Constable of the Leicestershire Police does not have an article. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 06:09, 17 April 2019 (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.