Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Szwaja


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Joe_Szwaja
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non notable, minor public official with no recent political office. Novelty candidate in numerous elections, with little success.  Bevin  bell  18:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep In my opinion, the sources listed in the article are enough to meet the general notability guidelines.  Jujutacular  T · C 18:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There are articles surrounding his election efforts, but I do think it fails WP:Politician.  Bevin  bell  18:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that he fails WP:POLITICIAN. This does not however bar the article from being kept on the basis of passing the general notability guidelines.  Jujutacular  T · C 20:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:Prof and WP:Politician. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC).
 * How do you feel about the general notability guidelines? Specifically, I contend that Szwaja "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  Jujutacular  T · C 00:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Does not seem to be much out of the ordinary. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC).


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG as well. The coverage is not significant under the terms of the guideline. StAnselm (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Szwaja fails WP:POLITICIAN but he passes WP:BIO / WP:GNG. As wrote at another AfD, "The general notability guideline supersedes any subject specific guidelines." Notability (people) (which encompasses WP:POLITICIAN) says that "A person is presumed notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Szwaja has clearly received this coverage. See this article from The Seattle Times, where Szwaja receives over ten paragraphs of coverage, and this article from Seattle Post-Intelligencer, where he receives exactly ten paragraphs of coverage. These sources, coupled with the numerous sources already present in the article, establish that Joe Szwaja passes Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Cunard (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As noted, there are a number of references from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, hitting all the points in WP:GNG.  As for WP:POLITICIAN: "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." (though one might argue that Madison, the capitol of Wisconsin, isn't a major metropolitan city, and he there isn't much from his seven years on council there) Bennetto (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Although Madison (pop. 229,000) is not large enough that a member of its council would be automatically notable, there seem to be sufficient sources for him in particular. I     DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Would you not agree that most, if not all, the coverage is linked to failed runs for public office. Does failed campaign coverage rise to the level of significant coverage/notability?   Bevin  bell  17:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Failed elections are generally less notable than successes, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable at all. Many Americans with a good background of history could tell you who gave the Cross of Gold speech; far fewer, I suspect, could name his opponent.  As for coverage: just because he lost doesn't mean the coverage he received isn't "significant". Bennetto (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would pose that there is a big difference between a democratic nominee for president and a City Council candadite and green party candadite for a congressional seat in terms of notability. Bevin  bell  18:06, 2 March 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.