Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Conyers III


 * 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 redirect to John Conyers. General consensus for a "redirect" closure. (non-admin closure) f eminist 02:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

John Conyers III

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I created this to be a redirect because people interested in the subject should find something. Instead, an article was attempted from it that so clearly does not meet WP:GNG that a discussion should not be necessary, but yet here we are. He fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate. The only sources that cover him in any depth only address an arrest, so that's a BLP issue. To be clear, I want this to be redirected back to his fathers' article, as I had established it. I'm disappointed this process is necessary for such a clearly non-notable case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete- at least for now. Not only has he not won an election, he hasn't even officially announced he is running. Otherwise, he is not notable and notability certainly isn't inherited from his father.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect - I agree with the OP, but I don't feel a week-long discussion should be necessary. The redirect is to a related topic and to discourage re-creation. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to initiate a week-long discussion on this either, but an editor reverted my redirecting this to his father's article, and there's no better mechanism to have this discussion than AfD, even though deletion isn't what I'm looking for. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete absolutely no reason to redirect at this point. A redirect might be worthwhile if Conyers wins the primary, but at this point he is a person who is not even for sure going to be on the ballot. I do think this primary will be another that will illustrate why Michigan should have run-off primaries, but we will see. Short of winning the election, Conyers will not be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Redirect I agree with the sentiment of Redirects are cheap, and this is not (yet) notable for a standalone article. &mdash;cnzx (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Restore redirect or delete. This is a plausible search term, but a person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just for being a prospective candidate in a future congressional primary. Even being a confirmed candidate in the primary still isn't a notability criterion per se, and even winning the primary and thereby getting on the general election ballot still isn't grounds for a standalone Wikipedia article — to pass WP:NPOL, a person has to actually win the general election and thereby hold the office, not just run as a candidate. And until that happens, the only other way a candidate qualifies for an article is to properly demonstrate that he was already notable enough for one for some reason entirely independent of the candidacy, but this makes no other claim of preexisting notability for any other reason. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day 2018 if he wins the seat, but absolutely nothing here already gets him a standalone BLP today. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2017 (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.