Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Ellmore (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   no consensus. Sources seem somewhat sparse and generally related to the failed campaign(s), but there is a reasonable argument that enough sources are present nonetheless to pass the notability guideline. Notability is perhaps borderline here, but there is no solid consensus to delete. ~ mazca  talk 21:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Mark Ellmore
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject is a a banker who campaigned for U.S. Congress in 2008 and lost. He apparently did the same in 2006 and the article was deleted after that election. Other than routine local coverage and brief candidate profiles there does not appear to be any significant media coverage of his campaign or his life. The article was written by someone who says he worked for Ellman's campaign.  Will Beback   talk    18:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep - subject is of no great importance (lost both elections), but I feel he does meet the GNG through sources such as FoxNews profile, Washington Post story about his 1st run, Arlington Connection story about 2008 race, and so on (see:, but note there are several false positives). Also was interviewed by California Chronicle which may or may not be a blog.  Certainly there are many more notable politicians but I feel this one meets our inclusion guidelines, if only just barely. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep due to BrianY's expansion & other improvements. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- ( X!  ·  talk )  · @849  · 19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am a big editor of House elections page. From previous AFDs, all failed congressional candidates articles have always been deleted or redirected. However, in this particular circumstance, there was a lot of media on this campaign and it had Tillson as the campaign manager. (the youngest person ever to take on such a job) BrianY (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you add the media coverage you found? The stuff that ThaddeusB linked to above doesn't seem more than any congressional candidate would receive.   Will Beback    talk    04:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? I shall get you more media coverage of Ellmore later today. In the mean time, why don't you look up Arizona congressional candidate John Thrasher and see how much media he received. (That particular article should be deleted) What about Greg Conlin of California's 12th congressional district? BrianY (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what point you're making. What about Conlin?   Will Beback    talk    18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They are all (Ellmore, Thrasher, and Conlon) unsuccessful congressional candidates from 2008. Now compare the media coverage of all three. You'll find that Ellmore (as mentioned above from ThaddeusB ) has way more media coverage than Thrasher or Conlon. I could only find this on Conlon. So, if there is this much media coverage on Ellmore, it is worth keeping. BrianY (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. But there are 435 members of the House, and so there are nearly that many failed candidates every two years, or abot 2,000 every decade. I don't doubt that some of them are notable, but I just don't see much coverage for this guy. If you can find more and add it to the article then that'd help establish his notability. The fact that this one has received a little more coverage than a couple of others doesn't seem convincing on its own.   Will Beback    talk    23:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Another reason to keep is his notable campaign attacks that various blogs and newspapers picked up. (The Washington Post) The article already mentions that. Candidates like Ethan Berkowitz, Jay Love, Josh Segall, and Dan Seals are all notable and they lost campaigns this decade. BrianY (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why we'd consider Joshua Segall to be notable. Ethan Berkowitz seems to be a well-established figure in Alaskan politics and his notability isn't solely tied to his congressional run. Likewise Jay Love seems more notable for being a state legislator than a failed congressional candidate. Dan Seals (Illinois politician) appears to have received significnatly more media coverage than Ellmore. I don't think that being mentioned in blogs confers notability. If Ellmore has been discussed in newspapers then let's add those.    Will Beback    talk    23:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am too busy to add information into the article right now. You can start with the ones ThaddeusB used including the Washington Post, Fox News, and Arlington Connection. Here are some I just found by googling his name: American Chronicle, Washington Post, The Next Right, Virginia Podcasting, Source Watch, Red Virginia, Bearing Drift, Blacknell Interviewing, Old Atlantic Light House, and plenty of more blogs and news stories to look at. This story (Mark Ellmore news) garnered 27,500 hits on google, while Dan Seals for example only got 26,100 hits. BrianY (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We already discussed some of those on the talk page and found them to be blogs. Of that list, the American Chronicle is the same as the California Chronicle, a sort of distributor of self-published opinions. Sourcewatch is an open wiki, Virginia Podcasting Network is a pod/blog, The Next Right is a blog, Red Virginia is a blog, Bearing drfit is a blog, Blacknell.net is a blog, and Old Atlantic Lighthouse is a blog. That leaves only the Washington Post. The piece in the WaPo is very short, it's not really about Ellmore, and for them this was a local race so I don't think it qualifies as national coverage.   Will Beback    talk    00:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, a narrower Google search brings in 310 hits for Ellman. Many of those appear to be summaries or lists of candidates.    Will Beback    talk    00:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll see my response to blogs on your talk page. I have used them and not seem to come into trouble. BrianY (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Some candidates are most often talked about on blogs. Does that make them unnotable just by themselves? By the way the Alexandria Gazette Packet has an article on the race here. BrianY (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If everyone and everything that are discussed on blogs got WP articles this encyclopedia would be twice as large. The Gazette Packet article is about the race, but it's not about Ellmore, and it says little about him beyond outside of discussing the primary campaign, and only about two paragraphs in total.   Will Beback    talk    17:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added two external links. One of them (Source Watch) was considered against policy above, but is on another failed congressional candidates articles such as Josh Segall. BrianY (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails notability. Only mentions are related to his failed campaigns. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Niteshift36 (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sorry, Losing candidate with the only coverage by third party sources having to do with the election. The one he lost.  Does not meet the primary notability criterion.  If he wins in 2010, more than welcome to include here in Wikipedia.  Until then sorry.    Thanks ShoesssS Talk 00:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Failing to win an election doesn't automatically disqualify one, it just means you must meet the GNG, which appears to be the case here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I’m sorry, it looks like you missed my comment on the Notability As it pertains to the primary notability criterion., which I believe you call “GNG” In reviewing the references, I was able to find, I found nothing at all Unrelated from the election.  In this case, unless notability can be established outside of “just running for office”, I have to express a delete opinion.  Take care, and good luck to Mr. Ellmore's next campaign.  ShoesssS Talk 17:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No I understood what you said, but there is no requirement in the current guidelines that say a person who was noted for running an election campaign, but lost is not notable. In other words, there is no requirement that coverage be unrelated to the election - as long as the coverage is about the person (in this case it is) - instead of the election in general. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - What you overlooked is that trying to establish notability under a failed run for office, and the coverage it generated falls under coverage based on one event. As policy shows, by following the just mentioned blue link: "...When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person."  Hope this helps in explaining my view.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 23:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We're going to have to just agree to disagree. As it states "it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." We don't have an article about the event currently, just the person.  If there was an article about the event I might say redirect, but there isn't so I say keep.  (Although there are actually two events here as he ran twice so far.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - LOL- absolutely right :-).  That is what I love about Wikipedia, you express opinions, and hopefully, you get the majority on your side. ShoesssS Talk 01:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Media mentions as listed above qualify this article. I don't see what my work on the Ellmore campaign has to do with anything, as referenced by the deletion initiator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GBVrallyCI (talk • contribs) 18:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, at first (before some improvements) it appeared that many things that were wrote were not sourced correctly. Presumably, an insider would know his positions whether or not they were in the media. Check out this as well, though I don't think it's extremely relevant. BrianY (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Mark Ellmore lost two elections, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia. His running for the elections has generated at least two reliable sources. The first, from the Washington Post, is an in-depth article about his campaign. The second, from the Gazette Packet covers his victory in the Republican primary. These reputable sources allow him to pass WP:BIO, so this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 20:57, 7 August 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.