Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Waters


 * 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. ✗ plicit  14:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Justin Waters

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NPOL. Not elected, puff page, no significance, no notability as a lawyer, politician or drive through wedding practitioner. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians,  and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete unelected candidates for office are almost never notable, nothing suggests this would be one of the extremely few exceptions to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep multiple references over a five year period establish notability. The notability is not solely due to being a candidate; however, over the next few months more election related articles about the subject of this article are likely to come out. If it needs to be further edited to remove puffery that can be done. --Waters.Justin (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your long standing contributions to Wikipedia and willingness to change the wording (unlike others who create candidate articles). However, more election related articles would simply prove the notability of the 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida. an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Mpen320 (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable political candidate; the COI is also an issue. Curbon7 (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom., not presently notable per WP guidelines. The article can easily be re-created if he wins election to the seat he is running for, or gains significant coverage in WP:RS-compliant sources (aside from routine campaign coverage). Sal2100 (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Fair to say the current sourcing doesn't establish significance. Don't have a problem with COI here, user has done everything right. Nweil (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — and the merely expected and run of the mill level of campaign coverage in the local media, where coverage of elections in the media outlet's local coverage area is merely expected to exist, is not in and of itself sufficient to give a candidate a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL: if that were how it worked, then every candidate in every election would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless. Rather, a candidate's sourcing needs to establish one of two other things: either (a) they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides their candidacy per se, or (b) they can show a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as significantly more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the "even if he loses the election and never accomplishes another notable thing in his life, people will still be looking for information about his campaign ten years from now anyway" test. But this doesn't pass either of those tests at all, and it's instructive that the only "keep" vote so far has come from the subject himself, who is not entitled to put himself into Wikipedia per our WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI rules. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is already enough to earn him permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia today. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nomination and Bearcat's follow-up.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2022 (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.