Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Mallahan


 * 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 merge to Seattle mayoral election, 2009. It doesn't sound like those giving the earlier "delete" opinions would disagree.  Sandstein  12:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Joe Mallahan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for mayor of a city, which is sourced entirely to WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the mayoral election itself with no evidence shown of any media coverage in any other context. As always, however, non-winning candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he had preexisting notability for some other reason independent of the candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to attain notability because of the election. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Definitely fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cannot establish the "political activism" claim outside of his sourced website. Everything else is associated with the failed run for mayor. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. Although there is significant biographical detail in the Seattle Times, I think he fails WP:GNG because he has nothing but WP:LOCAL coverage. I think this should be pruned back and mentioned in regional elections articles, if anywhere.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Seattle mayoral election, 2009, since if this article is deleted then the election article will contain no information, and no bluelink, about the top runner up. Failing WP:POLITICIAN is not sufficient reason to delete an article. Simply scroll up a bit and read "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below". Criteria like WP:ANYBIO or WP:ARTIST or WP:NPOL exist as additional paths to keeping an article after they have failed WP:BASIC also known as WP:GNG. Mallahan is notable for spending three times as much money as McGinn, winning all the major endorsements including the Governor, Seattle Times, and more, and only losing by a small margin. This unusual race was covered non-locally, for example, Money Can't Buy You Love; Mayoral Races, The Economist, November 7, 2009, or D'Aprile, Shane. Washington Politics Magazine Nov.-Dec. 2009. We don't need to keep all the content from the Joe Mallahan bio, but keep enough to give a complete narrative of the 2009 election and results. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, SNGs do not exist as "additional paths to keeping an article after they have failed GNG". People quite regularly try to create PR-inflated, or sometimes even outright hoax, articles about topics that are claimed to satisfy an SNG but actually don't, so an SNG cannot be passed without GNG-eligible sourcing to support it — and people also quite regularly try to claim that GNG is passed on the basis of really trivial coverage like "local teenager tweets about Taylor Swift" or "nine-toed teen tries out for high school football team" in the local Pennysaver, so coverage doesn't count toward GNG until it's in a context that specifically goes toward satisfying an SNG. In other words it's not GNG or an SNG — it's GNG and an SNG simultaneously with each other. They work in tandem with each other, not as distinct alternative paths.
 * And it's not our responsibility to maintain more than minimal "name and vote total" content about "top runners up" in elections — our job here is to publish appropriate information about the person who won the election and thereby became the actual mayor, not necessarily to maintain biographical details about non-winning also-rans. I'll grant that the election article certainly needs more content than it has about the issues that were raised in the campaign as points of discussion and debate, but it doesn't need any more content than it has about Mallahan's personal background or his finances. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Right there in the intro of the Notability policy it says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". Enough said.I have no idea why you say "It is not our responsibility" with responsibility in italics as if I had made any such assertion, or as if I said that it was our job or that anything was mandatory. That's all an irrelevant straw man. We're not mandated to do anything, and no outcome is guaranteed. We don't have to redirect and merge, but I think it's the best choice, and I have good reasons.The point of my merge !vote is to argue that it is more of an improvement to redirect Joe Mallahan to the election article than to drop readers who click on his name on a blank page, and the election article is better if it gives readers some background and detail about the major candidates. The AfD guidelines say "Alternatives to deletion should be considered". WP:ATD-M says, as an example, that information about a non-notable individual could be merged in to a related article about a notable topic. WP:POLOUTCOMES says that merging a non-notable also ran into an election article is a common and often desirable AfD outcome. The WP:POLOUTCOMES has a lot of unnecessary WP:BEANS warnings not to keep any uncited BLP content, and don't userfy articles that shouldn't be userfied, but otherwise, it's consistent with all of the above policies. Every single Featured Article about an election (I count eight) contains extensive biographical information, including personal background unrelated to issues, about all major candidates, including also-rans, and in many cases even sketches in details about minor party fringe candidates. You are entitled to your opinion that an election article should exclude such details, but I, and an apparently large number of FA editors and reviewers, think that articles with these details are better. Besides the mere opinion from me and many editors that such background and context makes a better articles, WP:NOTSTATS is one policy that points in the direction of fleshing out articles with quite a bit more than just Mallahan's, name, employer and job title. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge as suggested and as usual practice. Nothing more to add. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge since he received a fair amount of votes and may be notable in the future. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 16:14, 17 October 2016 (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.