Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Formosa


 * 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. Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, and the article reads like a campaign document. This isn't what Wikipedia is for. Of course, should he actually contest the seat, and actually win - then no prejudice to re-creation, though I would suggest the campaigning spiel needs to be trimmed. Bios are supposed to be about the person - this one is mostly composed of his local press releases. Black Kite 11:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Mark Formosa

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject does not meet the GNG, having only been featured in local press, in connection with his role as PPC. WP:POLITICIAN does not deem candidates to be notable in themselves, and what press coverage he has had stems solely from that role, not from any other notable actions or attributes. Saalstin (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Although the GNG says that the depth of coverage may vary according to the nature of the coverage, it does not disqualify local press entirely. He's lost one election, moved, and is preparing to stand for election again, so he doesn't quite hit the scope of WP:ONEEVENT. I have an editorial reservation or two about the article, but those aren't strong enough for me to say that the article should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment He is a candidate. Nothing more.  Repeated candidate doesn't make him any more notable (until he does something like passes records for standing and losing more than anyone else).  We delete ones like this all the time, it's an article seeking to make notability, rather than reporting it --Saalstin (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Then if he wins give him three lines. It is bad enough that less notable MP's get detailed mentions in this encyclopedia. Three lines would have been it in the good old publications. Why there are reams of text about a man who has just stood for one seat, failed, and is now standing for another, I cannot fathom. Seriously if every PPC in every seat had a page this large there would be at least 3000 more nonsense entries--OutragedOfOake (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)--OutragedOfOake (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment OutragedofOake a new, near single purpose account.--Saalstin (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment To delete a key candidate in a key marginal in the run up to a general election that might well see a landslide and the possible terminal decline of a ruling party might not seem to exhibit much wisdom. The decision process ought, however, continue.   Verthandi

Delete this page, it is simple a campaigning tool. The big problem with this page, and indeed the use of wiki pages for campaigning, is that it draws down the value of all the other pages. This article 'quotes' fifteen references. Five are the local Tory party website, produced by the subject of the article, four are from paid for adverts placed in the local press, written by the subject of the article and of the remaining six, three are bio pieces, one used twice  and two are focused on other people with a comment from the subject included. How can this justify eight lines of biographical details and amazingly thirty five lines of text about beliefs,campaigns and promises. It is just free self promotion on the internet.
 * If this were the standard for all entries in the political sphere any MP's page would be thousands of lines long, overflowing with any press releases they wished to write about themselves. I assume this is why in general prospective political candidates do not qualify as significant for entry in this encyclopedia. This page is of little to no value to the wider audience. I think that it should be removed. I also think that many entries about elected politicians are abused, but, they have at least been elected.--Milk76 (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum, Saalstin Has put it perfectly above.'We delete ones like this all the time, it's an article seeking to make notability, rather than reporting it'--Milk76 (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep. As I have explained on the article's talk page, the criteria for politicians are indeed satisfied. The second category of people worthy of inclusion is "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", for which Formosa clearly qualifies, as you can see from the numerous press articles cited on his page. Furthermore, the third criterion states that although being an unelected candidate for political office does not in itself guarantee notability, such people can nevertheless be notable if they have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article", which again, Formosa clearly has and continues to do. As for "free self-promotion", if there is an article about Taunton's MP, then in the interests of fairness and balance there should be one about his main opponent, who receives just as much media coverage as Browne himself. QuantockWarrior (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Independent references. I have just added some more (totally independent) references from the Wellington Weekly News, Somerset County Gazette and Western Daily Press. This demonstrates still further Formosa's high profile in the local media which amply satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. QuantockWarrior (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 'PPC campaigns' is not evidence of notability, it's evidence that he's a PPC, which is not notable. If he mattered for having done something important, that would be something else, but this article is only seeking to promote him.  I'd also like to note that your concerns about 'the interests of fairness and balance', we have policies - Neutral Point of View, Notability, and WP:POLITICIAN.  Any party, or supporter's idea of 'fairness and balance' doesn't come into it, and if it did we would have articles on every PPC in every constituency, circonscription, riding, and district.  We don't, because very few of them are notable.  Being a 'main opponent' is irrelevant.  WP is an encyclopaedia, not a news outlet, and not Mark Formosa's self-promotion page.  --Saalstin (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It really is most tiresome to have to constantly repeat myself until I am blue in the face, but he we go again: the WP:POLITICIAN criteria are amply justified. Here is what I wrote on the talk page: He [Formosa] is a "major local political figure who has received significant press coverage", as the criteria demand. Not having been elected does not disqualify him as such. A person can be a major local political figure if he is regularly reported on by the press for having involved himself in politics, which Formosa has done. This is clarified by the third criterion, which states that although being an unelected candidate for political office does not in itself guarantee notability, such people can nevertheless be notable if they have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". It is clear, therefore, that candidates who are not elected can indeed be featured, as long as they satisfy that stipulation, which Formosa does." You subject me to patronising lectures about Wikipedia's policies. I am well aware of these policies, which is why I have repeatedly explained why the WP:POLITICIAN criteria are fulfilled. In relation to Neutral Point of View, this rests upon whether a candidate is notable or not, which comes back to the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. There is no infringement of either policy. The article is not only seeking to promote him, and anyone is more than welcome to add, for example, criticism from Formosa's opponents as Mr Browne's opponents have done to his page. QuantockWarrior (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Two people are here supporting keeping this nonsense. I may be anti all the local politicians but QuantockWarrior works with the subject of the article and Verthandi is a weekly press commentator and supporter of the party locally. Hardly independent opinion of who a major figure is. To compare, the Labour PPC for the same area has only been selected for a quarter as long as the Tory subject of this article. A simple search of the local paper finds dozens of articles including him in too. I am sure the same would be true for UKIP and any other party's candidates, like almost every other prospective candidate in the country they have no Wiki pages. This is why it is madness to have PPC pages (just because local Tory party members think that their guy is notable don't make it so).--OutragedOfOake (talk) 18:57, 22 September 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.