Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Kelly


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Kelly

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •
 * Delete: unclear if notable or not as unsuccessful political candidate. Business career does not appear particularly notable nor does his war record alone, however gallant. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my updated comments below the comment of MelanieN. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my updated comments below the comment of MelanieN. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - As a 'finalist' candidate for a national seat he should be notable, also it's entrirely possible he could run again in the next election, in which case the article would just have to be recreated, possibly with lost information. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 23:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "As a 'finalist' candidate for a national seat he should be notable,..." -- NO. This is untrue and little more than a facile unfounded assertion. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * yes, but that "entirely possible" comment kind of falls under WP:NOT A CRYSTAL BALL.... Turqoise 127  05:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point. But WP:CRYSTAL also says we can't assume he won't... - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 07:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Bushranger -- one cannot keep an unqualified article on Wikipedia because the subject of that article may or may not do something two or more years later. You should know that. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, how would information be lost? If the page is deleted and later one wishes to recreate it with the same spelling the previously deleted message appears and any admin can restore the article and it can be updated later as far as I know. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep major party candidates for national office are notable, as shown by the references. National attention is always paid to such races. In addition to the references in the articles, there is, from outside Arizona,  US News and World Report, msn, Washington Times  Washington Post,CQ,     UPI NYTimes & NY Times  & a few dozen others, and and internationally as well--Msil & Guardian (South Africa), ...    DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant race, received lots of secondary source attention. Satisfies WP:GNG pretty squarely. At some point, we really should have a centralized discussion about major-party candidates for national office in the US, but this one we can decide w/o such a discussion. Ray  Talk 14:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Kelly came very close to being elected to the U.S. Congress. His race represents important trends from the 2010 election cycle. It's unclear how notable he will be in the future, but his role in the 2010 election earned him a place in the history books.--Utahredrock (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, or Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona, 2010. He is not notable for anything except being an unsuccessful candidate for office. All news coverage is about the election and his candidacy, not about him. The "national coverage" cited by DGG consists mostly of general articles about the election in Arizona, in which Kelly gets a passing mention. IMO he fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. Note that other people who ran close but unsuccessful races for Congress have tended to be deleted or redirected; see, for example, Articles for deletion/Andy Vidak. (This is cited, not as an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but rather of WP:Common outcomes.) Please note also that WP:Common outcomes says plainly that "Candidates for a national legislature/parliament or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability." -- MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Brava, Melanie, very well said and well done. Change mine to Delete or redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona, 2010. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * perhaps you could explain the relevance of fansite?   DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * CommentI've read the articles. the coverage is substantial. Of course the coverage is about the election and his candidacy, what else would the coverage on any politician  be primarily about?  On the contrary, if the coverage was mainly about his personal life, he would not be notable.  We have indeed redirected many such people in the past--I think that a drastic error, and fortunately we are not bound by it. (I tend not to go strictly by the GNG, but for those who do, and I think that's still a majority of people here, he meets it & there should be no need to say further. The assumption that most unelected politicians would not meet it was in error, and based only on the limited online sources available at the time.    DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment OK, let's look at those articles. The articles you cited from U.S. News, MSNBC, UPI printed in the Washington Times, and the first NYTimes article each devote one sentence or less to Kelly. I couldn't find anything about him at all in the second NYT article or the link to CQ. Only  the column in the Washington Post gives more than a sentence to Kelly; in that column, which is specifically about the Arizona-8 race, 2 paragraphs out of 24 are about Kelly. In all cases the coverage is about the "horse race", that is, who is running or who is likely to win; it does not come close to "significant coverage" about Kelly. You are certainly free to assert that "horse race" coverage about an election (rather than about the person) makes the person notable, but that has not been the usual consensus here per WP:Common outcomes. It's not a matter of assumptions; there is no consensus that unelected candidates are automatically notable, and no consensus that they are not. The consensus is to treat them on a case-by-case basis, whereby they are notable or not, depending on whether or not they have received significant coverage. IMO Kelly has not. --MelanieN (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona, 2010 as suggested by Melanie. The arguments I read above for keeping are that "a 'finalist' candidate for a national seat... should be notable", that "major party candidates for national office are notable", that it was a "significant race" and that he "came very close".  WP:POLITICIAN hasn't yet been expanded to be that inclusive, and this person is not notable outside of the election that's referred to in the redirect target.  Mandsford 21:24, 5 December 2010 (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.