Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Annarumma


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

John Annarumma

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This individual does not appear notable. Candidates are typically not deemed notable on Wikipedia just because they are candidates. His career has no citations of notability, and his political citations only indicate that he is running. Nothing cited indicates that his candidacy in itself is notable. Therefore, I respectfully nominate this article for deletion. SoxFan999 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Subject does not have any significant notability. However, this may change over time since the elections are a time sensitive event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutno (talk • contribs) 01:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I support having articles for the actual nominees of major US and UK parties, even if they do not win--but for splinter parties such as this, just as for candidates for a party primary, it's another matter entirely, unless real notability can be proven. I'd perhaps even consider this a valid G11 speedy as primarily promotional.   DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN and beyond that I'm not finding any reliable independent sources that satisfy WP:BIO in general. PDCook (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It doesn't surprise me that Soxfan999 has nominated this article. If you look at his history of contribution's you will see that he has negatively edited everything having to do with the Florida Whig Party. This is a personal attack from the Modern Whig Party a group in which the FWP was once affiliated with. The attacks started instantly after Florida cut ties with the MWP. To say this party and it candidates are not notable is absurd. Look at the articles in reference that explain that the Florida Whig party and its candidates have made history in Florida simply by running the most ever third party candidates for Federal office in the States history. Look at the edit history and say that this is not personal. why has he never contributed to any thing besides the FWP article and the MWP's article and in the Florida Candidates articles?Jrogoski (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * attacking a new wikipedia editor doesn't take away from the underlying fact that the subject is not notable. If the party is notable for running candidates, then it is more appropriate on the party page and not a separate entry for some who is not notable. Also, typically the creator of a page doesn't vote to keep. I also am a republican voter in Florida so am interested in this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoxFan999 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note: it is entirely appropriate for the page creator to !vote/comment here. PDCook (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, no reliable sources to meet general notability guidelines. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Delete (changed for reasons stated below Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)) but review after the creator or someone has had time to develop this new article. One reference is from a local general circulation newspaper with a print circulation of about 50,000 Ocala Star Banner and there is also a reference from Ballot Access News (I didn't look up circulation since I recognized it as legitemate) which is a 25 year old national nonpartisan political newsletter. By nonpartisan I mean in the sense of political party favoritism, not that it doesn't have a position on the general political issue it reports on. To say no reliable sources have been cited is incorrect. I don't know how much weight to give their mentions. I think BAN's was quite brief and the Star-Banner article seemed to require clicking through several pages to read which I didn't do because I'm not that interested. I'm not sure if the Muncie Free Press should have been rejected as a reliable source though I think whoever wanted/wants to use it should make the case for it if it is a reliable source since that's not clear. MFP seems to rely heavily on some fledgling new "wire service" that solicits news but exercises editorial judgement (ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox TV news programs and major newspapers also do this) and it looked like MFP exercised editorial judgement over what it uses but I lost the link that indicated that and  suggests "wire service" isn't as apt a description as I'd thought it doesn't undermine exercise of editorial judgement.


 * No talk page exists for this article, or attempt to work together to reach concensus by the editors and the request for deletion appears to be premature IMO. Bluntly it appears to be an edit warring censorship tactic. "Gaming the system" or whatever the appropriate Wikipedia phrase is. That's my main reason for suggesting the article be kept for maybe two to four weeks to see if it goes forward and judge on the merits then. If it's just been abandoned I don't see it as being notable enough to keep but maybe work on it has just been interrupted. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The citations of the Ocala newspaper and Ballot Access could be good citations if they were about the article subject. But they are more only mentioning that he is running and mainly focused on the political party. This entire article is written like a campaign literature, but the two media sources only mention him as opposed to feature. I looked for additional articles to try and save this page but did not find anything that would comply. I still contend that this page be deleted for lacking notability and failing the politician standards. If he down the road receives enough attention on his own then a more appropriate article could be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoxFan999 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr. Annarumma is not even mentioned until page 6/7 (and only once) in the Ocala article. The Ballot Access and Independent Political Report articles just sort of say he's running and then talks more about the party. The reliable sources given in the article, and the ones I've found via a Google search, simply do not demonstrate a level of notability that would satisfy WP:BIO. Overall, this is largely a promotional article written like an ad campaign. As far as there being no discussion on the article's talk page, that is simply not a prerequisite for AfD in this case. If it was a borderline case of notability, then a discussion may have been warranted, but Mr. Annarumma clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and I think this AfD discussion is not at all premature. Furthermore, I came across this article in the deletion discussions list and I assure you, Refrigerator Heaven, that I am not here to censor anything and I am certainly not gaming any system. I am here to show my support for Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I will point out that no amount of work can make a non-notable article notable. PDCook (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The Muncie Free Press site is "Citizen Journalism" user-generated content (see and is clearly not a reliable source.  --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I find the comment by PDCook (who has no appearance of a conflict of interest) sufficiently convincing to change my suggestion from keep to delete. I also see an edit summary line along the lines of "stop your unauthorized editing" (which is in some associated article) may not have been a comment by SoxFan999 as I'd thought previously and I don't really disagree that this sounds like a puff piece though I don't assume that means the article subject is necessarily non-notable. However, I've no interest in researching the subject to find out or otherwise editing the article. I don't recall how I came across this article and doubt I'd have even looked at the deletion discussion if not for the nature of the controversy about deletion of Biographies of Living Persons at []. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note of procedure: if you are changing your !vote from keep to delete, you should strike out (using ABCXYZ ) your keep above and add a delete next to it. PDCook (talk) 14:05, 1 February 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.