Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Reed (attorney)


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Jim Reed (attorney)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject does not appear to be any more notable than thousands of other lawyers, judges, or congressmen that have lived. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Is there no place to merge this topic?  Why is this at AfD?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , where would it be merged to? Primefac (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * A person whose only substantive claim of notability is as an unelected candidate in elections that he hasn't won does not pass WP:NPOL — if you cannot demonstrate that he was already notable enough for other things to get past a different notability rule independently of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not merely run in it, to gain notability from the election itself. Delete (or redirect if there's a viable target), without prejudice against recreation if he wins an assembly seat. Bearcat (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait, although the subject does not currently meet WP:GNG, and what non-primary or secondary reliable sources about the subject out there are regarding the subjects candidacy, thus would have the subject meet WP:BIO1E, and thus be redirected to the article about the election, per WP:POLOUTCOMES; if the subject does win, the subject is automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN, as the subject would be Assemblyman-elect, and an incoming member of a sub-national legislative body. Therefore, I urge that this AfD be held until at least 6 November 2014.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * An AFD deletion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article on Wikipedia — it's a judgement on the quality of the article that exists at the time of the deletion discussion. If he wins the election, then yes, he'll absolutely qualify for an article at that time, because his basic claim of notability will have substantively changed — and we even have the ability to restore the deleted article if and when it's needed. But we don't have to keep the current version of the article pending the possibility that he might qualify for an article in the future — because deleting it today isn't preventing it from being recreated in the future if circumstances change. But I should also point out that given that election day is inside the seven-day AFD period after the relist date, we'll already know whether or not he won by the time this discussion is even eligible to be closed in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:N notability is function of the world-at-large. A deletion on wp:notability tells us nothing about the quality of the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're missing my point entirely — "not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article" was the substance of my point. A person's notability can change over time — they might accomplish something a week or a month or a year or a decade from now that puts them over an inclusion criterion that they don't pass today; the availability of reliable sourcing about them can change over time; and on, and so forth. But we don't keep an article about the person just because the possibility exists that one of those things might eventually happen; if it hasn't already happened as of today, then we delete it today, and then it becomes eligible for recreation again in the future if and when the circumstances change.
 * That's my point: we keep or delete an article based on the state of things as it exists today, but that doesn't prevent him from becoming a valid article topic again in the future if stuff changes. Obviously if the notability is already there and the article just isn't doing a good enough job of explaining it, then we keep and fix the article — but the claim being made wasn't that he was already notable, but rather that we should withhold judgement pending the possibility of him maybe getting over an inclusion rule in the future that he didn't pass at the time of nomination. But that's not how things work on here. We don't keep articles about unelected candidates just because they might eventually win — if they're just unelected candidates now then we delete them now, and then we can recreate them in the future if and when they do win the election. Bearcat (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My point was that we are not discussing the quality of the article here, only wp:notability. Notability is not a deletion test, it is stand-alone article test.  If the topic is not notable, we redirect it.  The exception would be if there was no target for redirection, but that exception is not applicable here, so there is no deletion to discuss here.  Which goes back to my initial question, which means that this topic could have been redirected to a suitable target without bringing the topic to AfD, and if the topic won, a non-admin could restore the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, the subject does not appear to be in the position to win this election (36.7% of the vote with 28.1% of precincts reporting at the time of this post), therefore, the article should be redirected to the section about the election per WP:BIO1E, California State Assembly election, 2014. If the subject receives significant coverage outside of this event (the election), the article can be recreated at that time. Being a perennial candidate may lead to meeting WP:GNG, as other redirect targets include United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2012 and United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2010 but that does not appear to be the case yet IMHO. As a former college football player the subject might have received significant coverage, but so far I have not seen anything suggesting the subject meets WP:NGRIDIRON.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, with 100 per cent now counted he definitely didn't win the election. But we should always wait until all 100 per cent of the ballots are counted, rather than basing a conclusion on what the situation looks like at just 28.1 per cent — not all parts of a district actually vote the same way in the same proportions, so it does happen sometimes that a candidate is behind at 28 per cent of the count but then surges ahead to actually win in the end. Bearcat (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'd like to wait until Wednesday to see what happens; it is not impossible that he could win this time. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - see here. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2014 (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.