Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gino Ruffolo


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. However, it's been turned into a redirect which appears to have stuck, so I'll leave it. If the article gets repeatedly reverted, it can have its history deleted or be protected or something. 70.29.239.249's opion on admins is duly set aside. -Splash talk 00:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Gino Ruffolo
Delete as non-notable under WP:BIO. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC).
 * Note: in my opinion, administrators should not be able to vote. 70.29.239.249 16:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Gino Ruffolo is a political candidate, but does not hold at least a provincial office at the moment, and has not received significant press coverage. (Nothing in Google news, and only two or so related hits on Google.) Does not meet WP:BIO guidelines.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  14:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The majority (if not all) Vaughan council members record no results on Google news. I don't believe TheKMan's vote should count as he is not familar with the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.239.249 (talk • contribs)


 * Delete per nom. --Ardenn 21:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Incumbent mayors are permitted articles on Wikipedia; mayoral candidates are not. Delete. And by the by, I'm about three reverts away from proposing a permanent Wikipedia block on any IP that resolves to York Region. Bearcat 23:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: in my opinion, administrators should not be able to vote. 70.29.239.249 05:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The opinions of people have already accrued two "you're gonna get blocked if you keep that up" warnings, when their first-ever Wikipedia edit was less than 24 hours ago, kinda sorta tend not to be taken as seriously as the opinions of people who've been around here for a few years, and know how things work, and have established relatively trustworthy reputations. Especially when you're misreading them as actually meaning a comment that was obviously intended sarcastically. HTH, HAND. Bearcat 06:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My first edit was months ago. I choose not to sign up because I do not use this system very often.  I am also doing nothing to get blocked.  You told me to stop with the personal attacks and I have complied.  I am allowed to question the rules.  I feel, as an admin, you are far too personally invested in this discussion. 70.29.239.249 16:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Judging by Talk:Vaughan municipal election, 2006, you most certainly have not complied with my statement about personal attacks — your most recent personal attack was posted 25 minutes after you posted this comment. And if you'd care to point out how I'm personally invested in the discussion, I'm all ears — considering that I'm an NDP member in downtown Toronto who's never met anybody involved in this matter and has never been to Vaughan in my life apart from passing through it on the 400, I'd love to know where you think my purported "bias" on the subject lays. Bearcat 18:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above pm_shef 21:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep He is the ONE and ONLY challenger in a major GTA mayor race. My IP is not from York Region, so my vote should count for double. 70.29.239.249 05:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification No he's not, he's running against an incumbent, thus making him NOT the only candidate. pm_shef 05:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the above clarification remark was removed by 70.29.239.249 here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the text Cambridge. You appear to have ulterior motives when you post such things.  I took off the clarification because it is not necessary anymore.  Pm_shef's comment does not make any sense.  Read it.  I fixed my comment a few minutes after I posted and the clarification should be removed.  Since the admins can do this, I hearby ask that you remove the irrelevant clarification.  Thank you. 70.29.239.249 16:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Mangojuice 06:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification Basically, theirs two choices, either all incumbents and candidates articles should be deleted or all kept. No in betweens.  I vote Keep but if one is deleted then they all should be Deleted both incumbents and candidates.  Also to clarify Ruffolo is in fact currently the ONLY challenger to the incumbent in the Mayors race.--Eyeonvaughan 06:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think it's that simple. The other candidates may have notability outside of the scope of this particular political race.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Being a candidate does ot amount to notablility. However, incumbant people do a lot of work, which if notable, should be documented. Stress is on the notability of the work done by them. Candidates can't do much with respect to notability in being a candidate unless they are engaged in some historic battle, which does require notability out of candidature. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I just wanted to bring to everyone’s attention that John Greer a candidate for councillor in Toronto posted his own article in Jan. (which he admitted in the talk page). Soon after he posted it someone put it up for deletion. Even though he posted it himself the article won the debate to stay an article since he is a current candidate for councillor in the 2006 municipal election.  With all do respect to Greer he really has not accomplished enough in the past to be an article and is pretty non-notable.  His won the debate to stay so shouldn’t Ruffolo’s also? --Eyeonvaughan 09:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It hasn't won any debate — there hasn't been one. Somebody suggested on the talk page that it should be listed on AFD, but as of today nobody's ever actually listed it for deletion. Frankly, I sincerely doubt that it would survive an AFD, but being here because nobody's nominated it for deletion in the first place is hardly the same thing as actually surviving an AFD. Bearcat 09:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't up for deletion? whats this then? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Greer&oldid=36682359 I looked through the history and found a "speedy deletion" then the speedy deletion message was taken down--Eyeonvaughan 09:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * More info: I have nominated John Greer for AfD. This should settle the debate. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: I added more information to make this candidate a bit more notable. 70.29.239.249 16:02, 2 March 2006 (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.