Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Russell (Florida politician) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. WP:SNOW many, many, many times over J.delanoy gabs adds  20:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

John Russell (Florida politician)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject ran a couple of times, unsuccessfully, for political office. Despite what appears to be a plethora of references, there is really not much here, besides trivial and passing mentions, certainly no "significant press coverage" ("in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles"). The article seems to be a magnet for non-encyclopedic trivia and personal attacks on Russell's opponents (see this edit, for instance, all the way at the bottom), and there probably is a pretty big COI going on. Those, I know, are not reasons for deletion--a good reason for deletion is that our subject does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being an unsuccessful candidate doesn't qualify WP:Politician, and coverage is essentially related to the campaign, not him as an individual, so not WP:GNG either. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability for politicians is subjective. It appears his entry is undergoing updates which offer consideration. It appears the candidate contested his 2006 election and was noted in Mark Crispin Miller's book "Fooled Again." In addition, there appears to be numerous citations listed from newspapers articles. I believe this politician has unique contributions and may be considered notable. WP:POLITICIAN PuddyKat (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC) — PuddyKat (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Russellfl5. -- auburn pilot  talk  14:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 01:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Unique contributions" make you sound a bit less than impartial here, but read on for real irony. There are in fact numerous citations--but if a level-headed editor goes through them carefully they will see that there's really not much there. They were untemplated; I've added titles so duplicates could be removed and they can be better assessed. Lots of passing mentions, a whole bunch of primary data (election results), and a few references that discuss only the opponent--and all of that, including a terrific amount of absolutely trivial information, to obfuscate the lack of notability. I might point out that the subject seems to be an editor inserting that sort of trivia, besides accusing me of anti-Jewish terrorism. He actually put that in the article... Yes, that is an unique contribution! Drmies (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Redirect to Florida's 5th congressional district election, 2006. Candidacy does not equal notability. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare)  05:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ironholds (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete serial failed candidate --- nn per WP:POLITICIAN Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, SpacemanSpiff, Ironholds, Bigdaddy1981, and WP:COMMON.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  08:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above, it fails a number of standard Wikipedia guidelines.-- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  09:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable serial failed candidate. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  12:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per DrMies's review of sources.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Add me to the list of "wiki-terrorists" who thinks this guy fails WP:POLITICIAN. The COI and Sock issues here might warrant WP:TROUTing. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, but I wish to add my own points. The very clear ongoing consensus at English WP is that failed Congressional candidates are NOT notable, unless their working career is otherwise notable - for example service in local government or CEO of a corporation.  Having lots of trivial citations does not prove notability. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, as cliche as that is, there's not much more I can say. Keegan (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment/Delete I undid my closure following a request on my talk page. I don't happen to agree that this will in any way change the outcome of what's apparently a clear SNOW, but the request raised valid points so I was willing to re-open and re-list. That said, no evidence whatsoever he's notable StarM 01:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete mostly per above comments. I don't see a justifiable claim of notability in terms of WP:POLITICIAN or other more general criteria. -- auburn pilot  talk  01:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, not much else to say, doesn't meet GNG or Poltician specific guidelines. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Is there even one non-trivial independent source? Drawn Some (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Russell is more notable than a typical unsuccessful major-party candidate for Congress, in that, as independent sources establish, he was involved in two hotly contested primaries, losing in 2004 and winning in 2006. JamesMLane t c 10:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Being "more notable" than another non-notable person sounds a bit like being valedictorian of a special ed class. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2009 (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.