Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Ellmore (4th 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

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

I came across this article and nominated it for deletion before I realized it had been nominated before. Notwithstanding the previous discussions, my reaction to the article was: there is no way this guy should have an article, period. He fails WP:POLITICIAN easily. So he ran for office and got a few notes in the local papers pointing this out, so what? Anybody can do that. He has accomplished exactly nothing in his life that I can see that remotely warrants an article. He got less than 30% of the vote, running for Congress as a Republican in Virginia, which frankly I think my dog could do better than that. He has absolutely no public service record whatsoever that I can see. He managed to get the Republican nomination for Congress because a popular incumbent was running for the other party and no one else wanted to run except a Paulist. No article. (N.B.: as far as WP:GNG, please note that his coverage which is significant is not important (an interview, but in an online-only entity) and that which is important is not significant (a notable local paper, but only a brief description of his activities. Let's not let GNG blind us to the simple fact that people like this should not have articles.) Herostratus (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsuccessful candidate for congress, with no significant coverage found anywhere about HIM, and only standard local coverage about his two campaigns. --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per above, no significant coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt - fails WP:POLITICIAN by a long shot. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete w/o Saltinghe may run again, and the next election is next year, but for the time being he is not notable. Even independents that get just one or two percent of the vote get mentioned in newspapers, two failed runs for congress is just not enough to merit an article.Nitack (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt  I'm in favor of salting it too. We have no obligation to host a page every time somebody decides that they're going to run for office.  In one of the earlier debates, enough people were impressed that this Virginia candidate was being covered by newspapers in Virginia that there was a delusion that he met WP:GNG.  If local coverage were the measure of notability, all politicians, high school athletes, and reporters would be entitled to their own articles.  If a candidate for office was completely ignored by the local press, now that would be notable.  Mandsford 00:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and no saltNot even close to notable. However, I believe salting it goes a bit far considering he might run again in the future.-- LAA Fan '' 05:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm persuaded that salting is a bad idea too, since it means that if he does do something notable in the future, someone would have to get permission to create an article. Notable would mean winning office, not just running or even winning a primary.  Every new band and politician wants free publicity (although putting a needle into 3 million straw of hay and hoping someone finds it isn't a great advertising strategy).  However, a stern "don't do this" comment should be enough. Mandsford 14:59, 31 July 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.