Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Cicotte


 * 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   redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Washington, 2014. j⚛e deckertalk 15:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

George Cicotte

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Yet another as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election, who does not possess a strong or well-sourced claim of notability for something else to counterbalance the fact that he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN yet. Article relies mainly on primary sources such as the web page of his own law firm and one of his own campaign press releases, with only cursory coverage in actual reliable sources. As always he'll be entitled to an article on Wikipedia if he wins the election, but does not get one just for being a candidate. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Washington, 2014, where he's already appropriately included. Discrete search term, send the readers to the coverage Wikipedia justifiably has. Dru of Id (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The ongoing election has provided plenty of press coverage from independent sources--a Google news search yields 54 results.  Common Outcomes notes that losing politicians are often deleted without prior notability, but the 2014 Congressional election in Washington is ongoing.  This is moreso an issue with sourcing than with notability. scotty2haughty (talk) 5:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that the election is current and ongoing has no bearing on Wikipedia's inclusion rules. We do not keep as-yet-unelected candidates just because the election is underway, and then consider them for deletion only after it's ended and they failed to win — creating and maintaining articles about every individual candidate in a pending election for "voter education" purposes is not our job. Rather, a candidate does not qualify for an article on here until after they've won the election, unless (a) you can adequately demonstrate and properly source that they were already notable enough for an article for other reasons before they became a candidate, or (b) they somehow explode into a sustained major national news story that garners them much more than routine election coverage (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). Neither of those conditions has been demonstrated here, however. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Absolutely no evidence of notability whatsoever, the only coverage that exists is barely routine coverage of someone announcing their candidacy for office. Tiller54 (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 14:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as fails POLITICIAN .  →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  18:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete; not notable, for all the reasons given above. I don't see much value in a redirect; the Wikipedia search tool find the related articles just fine.  A redirect is likely to be more confusing to someone looking for information on the guy, because the content on the individual in the related articles is appropriately terse.
 * 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.