Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Ellmore (3rd 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   keep. GNG trumps local notability guidelines Spartaz Humbug! 04:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark Ellmore
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article was deleted after AfD. Resubmitted when he made another run at office, which he lost. Second AfD was no consensus. Ellmore fails WP:POLITICIAN. As a business man, he's done nothing notable. Did write a paperback book in 2003 that ranks #1,416,096 at Amazon. Can't see him passing WP:AUTHOR. His main attempt at claiming notability seems to be that for a time, he had a 15 year old campaign manager. Incidentally, the teens bio is also in AfD: WP:Articles for deletion/Daniel Tillson. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —Hot Steam Valve (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  —Hot Steam Valve (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep At least he has made it to a ballot -- other politicians have been kept who have never held elective office at AfD. has WashPost coverage (plus a bunch of ppv ones),   coverage in out-of-state sites.  Meets minimum notability for sure. Collect (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally, I'd agree with the Post coverage being a good indicator. However, it is more or less the local paper for where he is. Local papers, regardless of size, have to cover local news. That's what seperates them from USA Today etc. As for others being kept.....WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't much of a reason to keep it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also made a number of other papers - I only listed the major ones. "California Chronicle" is not, moreover, "local" for him. In another case, local AK papers with circulations under 10K were found "notable".  Virginia Connection Newspapers also covered him.  Bizjournal covered him.  Washington Blade did. Local tv covered him.  Fairfax Times.  Richmond Times.  Arlington Sun Gazette.  Culpepper Star Exponent.  New York Jewish Week.  How many are needed? (I do not consider New York to be "local" either.) Collect (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can do it without sarcasm. What makes you think I'd say the NY paper was "local"? Or the California one? So save the sarcasm for someone who wants it. Most of the rest are local. All of this is essentially coverage of the election happening. The news media covers elections. But if we use your reasoning, everyone who runs and gets covered should have an article and I think WP:POLITICIAN makes it clear that isn't the intent. He's never won anything. Nor has he run in a national election. A losing presidential candidate would be one thing, but losing a race for the local congressional seat isn't that notable. Literally hundreds of people run for congressional seats every two years....and lose. That isn't terribly notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No sarcasm intended. The articles focus on the "Jews for Jesus" part, as well as his stance on gays, which rather inforces the notability claims. And the precedent is clear that one need never win to be kept as an article (example is a person running for Gov. in a state when he has never even been on a ballot before, and is not even on the primary ballot yet).   Ellmore far exceeds those standards.  Collect (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say you had to win to be included. Pretty much any legit candidate for President, for example, would be notable, even though only one wins. But that is a national election, not a local one. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is usually not persuasive anyway. I don't see this as significant coverage. It's related to him running, which is nothing but trying to get covered. We have different views. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly passes the WP:GNG, thus making the sub-guideline WP:POLITICIAN an irrelevant argument. Sources noted by Collect above show notability beyond the local scope.  Jim Miller  See me 19:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I usually see people use GNG when the person isn't notable in their field and they're stretching to include them. It usually comes across as sort of an end-run to include them. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The GNG is THE guideline. Any of the other subject specific guidelines are merely attempts to better quanitfy specifics regarding where reliable sources should be readily available regarding particular fields, but cannot be more or less restrictive than the GNG. I mean no end-run by it, only using our primary guideline for the determination of subject inclusion. Where WP:POLITICIAN conflicts with the GNG, the GNG wins. WP:NOTABILITY requires a person to be notable, not notable "within their field."  Jim Miller  See me 19:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know and I'm entitled to have a different view and express it. I feel that the GNG thing was probably a good idea when it started, but it has become outdated. When time and community effort is put into specialized criteria for various topics, they usually make sense. The notion that simply getting your name in the media makes you notable smacks of counting ghits. Having a public job or attempting to get a public job gets coverage, but it doesn't make you notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the nominator that a candidate will get coverage running for a political office, but the coverage itself does not make the candidate notable. The subject technically meets qualification through WP:GNG, but because the subject is a politician it only makes since to follow the more specific criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. The subject ran in a general election once and lost in a landslide in a heavily democratic district. There is nothing else notable about the subject other than loosing elections. There are hundreds of failed candidates for political office every two years and simply loosing an election, as the subject has twice, does not meet notability guidelines. As such, this article has no place on Wikipedia. Hot Steam Valve (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. If he meets WP:GNG, it is game, set and match. WP:POLITICIAN is an additional criterion. WP:POLITICIAN is prefaced with the statement that "should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable" (emphasis original). --Mkativerata (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm curious how many people pass WP:POLITICIAN but fail GNG. It seems backwards. And it's not cut and dried. How much of the coverage is significant? How much is not simply campaign coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: It’s important to remember that Wikipedia guidelines are not set in stone, despite statement to the contrary above, and are indeed open to discussion and proper judgment. We need to be asking ourselves this question: “What has Mark Ellmore done that warrants a Wikipedia page?” Most people would agree that loosing elections does not justify a Wikipedia page, regardless of news coverage. It’s understandable that running for political office will generate media coverage, but this coverage does not guarantee notability of a politician for simply running and loosing. Referencing other non-elected politicians that have passed a prior AfD is not a valid argument and is irrelevant. Until the subject has more to offer than failed elections, this article is a solid delete. Hot Steam Valve (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree entirely with that. We apply WP:GNG because it is an objective test. If the test is "What has Mark Ellmore done", that question is subjective and everyone will have different answers. Notability isn't a test of achievement, its a test of the extent to which the subject has been covered in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree then. Biographies without notable achievements or position, yet qualifies under WP:GNG are always controversial. Hot Steam Valve (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Campaigns make the news. Newsworthy and notable are not interchangable. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep under the current use of WP:GNG. Personally, I think it can lead to over-coverage of local individuals, but it is accepted general biographical standard--as long as it doesn't fall under not news or not tabloid. Being  a major party candidate for election to a national level office is sufficient to be part of the permanent historical record, so it passes.    DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (that's a joke) and the general (if questionable) Wikipedia consensus that sacrificial-lamb candidates in incumbent-safe districts are notable. Separately, if the Jews-for-Jesus controversy is being used to justify notability, then someone should at least put it in the article. THF (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per having a limited coverage all in connection with his massive failures to get elected. If he does technically meet the GNG, then I think IAR should be invoked in response - he has exactly no relevance to history, important events, or indeed anything.  --Saalstin (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a pretty basic WP entry with room for improvement; and, with almost a dozen reference points, including press coverage; nothing out of the ordinary here in Wikipedia. What interests me more are the mechanisms behind ANY 3rd AfD nomination of a selected WP:BIO? That's, because of yet another 3rd AfD nomination which concerns me. The question is WHY this one article is renominated with so much community effort; while, over fifty two thousand BLP articles in Wikipedia are left without a citation (meaning, with possible sourcing difficulties and even less interest amongst our most active editors)? Personally, I think, the third attempt at having one particular GNG article deleted, has to do with the self-empowering nature of the "open source format" policies, more than their actual aim. -- Poeticbent talk  18:44, 11 January 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.