Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George S. Flinn Jr.


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

George S. Flinn Jr.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Political candidate (only) who has never held political office and who did not even win his party's recent primary. Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. A loose noose (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hm. It doesn't seem anyone wants to touch this with a 10' pole.  I am trying to figure out why.  I see that the article went through AfC and was accepted (eventually) by Legacypac back in March under the premise that the subject also owns a lot of radio stations.  However, the editor who created the article, Orual1963, has a VERY brief and recent edit history (53 edits) and has only made significant contributions to this article and one other article, and stopped editing once this article was published; there is no paid editing declaration on that editor's user page, but neither has there been any response to being notified that I nominated the article for deletion, which makes me think this was a kind of throwaway account and that the editor who wrote the article was probably paid but didn't declare it.  I am doubly suspicious because the subject was recently running for election.  The AfC draft was declined several times because other editors didn't think the subject was notable.  If the article seems pretty likely to be the result of an undeclared paid edit by an in-and-out editor, isn't that by itself enough reason to delete it?  If not, isn't the fact that the subject is an unelected political candidate enough to delete it?  If not, aren't those two things together enough to delete it?  Or does the fact that it went through AfC protect it from deletion somehow?  A loose noose (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * AfC doesn't protect an article from deletion at all. I haven't "touched this" yet because he fails WP:NPOL but I didn't look to see if he passed WP:GNG for his non-political work. If there's a COI issue, that's worth raising. SportingFlyer  talk  00:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, then I guess maybe I am raising it (?). But if the original author is no longer active and there is no declared COI, how can I prove this?  The innuendo seems believable, but without a COI declaration, there isn't anything to go by (that I know of).  What kind of evidence would count?  Also, during the AfC discussion, Legacypac determined that "Multiple runs for national office, even if he loses, can build to notability. The 30 broadcast stations would generate RS coverage in multiple markets during purchase, relicensing etc."  A search on the subject's name produces a huge volume of articles related to his candidacy, but I didn't come across any discussion of him on other grounds.  We can't ever find that he is not notable (per se), we can only find that he either is notable or we can fail to find that he is notable (yet), which is very different.  How do we proceed from there?  A loose noose (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete upon review of the sources in the article and (three quick WP:BEFORE searches) he fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. I expected there to be more about his health and radio work, but there are only a few hits on Google Scholar, and the campaign coverage is mostly routine with the exception of one quasi-bio. SportingFlyer  talk  06:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neither county councillors nor unsuccessful candidates in party primaries get an automatic inclusion freebie under NPOL just for existing, his notability as a radio station owner is not properly demonstrated by the purely routine directory sources being shown for that, and there's no demonstration of his notability as a radiologist being shown at all. This is far, far too dependent on primary sources, with not nearly enough real reliable source coverage in media to deem his work in any of these fields special. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2018 (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.