Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GeneCosta


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

GeneCosta

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested ProD, non-notable local politician, fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E, no sources. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 01:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I used a lot of sources. I live in the region where Gene campaigned, so I'd like to see this remain. He was on the local newspapers, radios, and TV. Is there a problem with them not showing up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBTMANIAC (talk • contribs) — TheBTMANIAC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

He got a lot of coverage for being 18 and running after all. If I could have help making these source links work.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBTMANIAC (talk • contribs) 02:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Small-town politician who ran and lost. No particular sources other than suburban local paper; not in Google News, where you'd expect to find this week's losers listed. And, believe it or not, 18 year old candidates are not all that unusual, let alone notable. Rklear (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep He's in the Dallas Morning News, one of the largest papers in the country. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/031308dnmetelexfilings.4df6d97b.html TheBTMANIAC (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My mom could receive a passing mention in the Washington Post; that doesn't justify inclusion of an entire article about her here. MuZemike  ( talk ) 04:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Dallas Morning News article is a list of everyone in the DFW area that filed for city council or school board. It mentions Costa; it's not *about* him. Rklear (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: That one isn't but the one I list below is. - Dravecky (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ran for a purely local office and lost. RayAYang (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:POLITICIAN. WP:RS attention comes from running for office and most of them are trivial, including the Dallas Morning News cite mentioned above. • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as there are two articles, one in the Lewisville paper and one in the Dallas Morning News, where Costa is the direct subject of the article. This, plus the other coverage, just pushes him across the general threshold for notability. (I've done some cleanup on the article, added references, and added categories.) If this article survives AfD, it should be moved to "Gene Costa" instead of its current errant name. - Dravecky (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources I refer to above are:
 * These are not "passing mentions". - Dravecky (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But they're still along the lines of a press-release. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 05:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember that Wikipedia is not news. The subject needs to be of lasting interest established by discussion in secondary sources. Rklear (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither of those reads anything like a "press release" and both are exactly the sort of third-party coverage from reliable sources that the standard requires. - Dravecky (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember that Wikipedia is not news. The subject needs to be of lasting interest established by discussion in secondary sources. Rklear (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither of those reads anything like a "press release" and both are exactly the sort of third-party coverage from reliable sources that the standard requires. - Dravecky (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete — I disagree with WP:NOT as this is not trivial coverage. However, the sources indicate BLP1E. If reliable coverage (via independent sources of course) can be found regarding this person besides from the mayoral election, then I'll gladly flip-flop. MuZemike  ( talk ) 08:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because the subject clearly has non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Citing BLP1E would only be useful if seeking to redirect this article about a candidate to an appropriate article about the election ("cover the event, not the person"). Also, it should be renamed to Gene Costa as noted above.  Jim Miller  See me 17:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N calls for coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. While newspaper articles can be secondary, the kind of direct interviews with the subject cited here are really primary sources. They can supplement, but they are not a substitute for, secondary coverage. Rklear (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. A newspaper article is a secondary source. It will rely on primary sources, but it is itself a secondary source. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A third place finisher, not a major party candidate. Any coverage is for the fact that he's only 18, but this is the sort of human interest trivia that is not notability, no matter how many sources from that area cover it. It's still not encyclopedic. This is what results when we count sources, instead of looking for actual importance or significance. NOT NEWS and ONE EVENT was intended to deal with things like this, but if it isn't clear that they do keep this out they needs wording with some more precision. DGG (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Third-place is no mark of notability, no matter what ephemeral 'man bites dog' story the local newspaper writes about it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete DGG says it perfectly. RMHED (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2008 (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.