Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Markel Hutchins


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Markel Hutchins

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Merely running for political office does not establish notability, and notability is not otherwise established. Perhaps redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia, 2008. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - his candidacy for public office is only one of his noteworthy activities. The controversies in which he has been involved, his civil rights and political activism also make him notable. The article includes references from reliable sources, although there is always room for more. Wikipedia would not be improved by this deletion. Ground Zero | t 20:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Which controversies? Passing a bad check and calling on someone else to resign don't strike me as particularly notable. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, his one controversy, his role as Johnston family spokesperson, his leadership of the National Youth Connection and his candidacy for public office. A bunch of smallish things adding up to Wikipedia being a better place for having an article on him. I'm still not clear how Wikipedia would be a better place because of a deletion. This is not a vanity article on a high school student or a local used car dealer. Hutchins is a public figure. Ground Zero | t 21:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This National Youth Connection doesn't seem particularly notable to me, either. In fact, this article is one of the first hits for the organization on Google. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not seeing substantial coverage. The "notable" events seem borderline especially for a BLP. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No significant coverage in 3rd party sources or evidence that candidate meets WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: no significant coverage, other than, of course, the articles from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and USA Today.... Ground Zero | t 17:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Both Atlanta journal links are broken, so since the creator didn't bother to add access dates we've no way of assessing them. Consequently I can only judge them on the basis of the USA Today article which is not about him at all, it's about a guy called Andrew Young and quotes Hutchins briefly. The other source is his website and a campaign site linked to him. So yes, no significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Valenciano (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, third party sources are not limited to those available though the internet. Printed sources are WP:Reliable sources. Just because you can't find them easily, doesn't mean that they are not valid. The USA Today article states that Hutchins criticized Andrew Young, who was a prominent member of Jimmy Carter's cabinet, in an opinion-page column in The Atlanta Journal Constitution. If Hutchins is writing opinion page columns in the AJC, he isn't a nobody, and a quotation in USA Today is of significance given that paper's broad reach. Ground Zero | t 17:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Many people criticize political leaders; that does not automatically make these people notable. And a wide variety of people write guest pieces in the AJC. Not all of these are notable. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't suggest that writing an op-ed piece makes someone notable or that running for office makes someone notable or that representing a family in a high-profile case makes someone notable or that being a civil rights activist makes somoneone notable. If you replace those ors with ands, I think he is notable. Above I was only pointing out that Valenciano's argument that there were "no third party sources" because s/he couldn't find them on-line was not a valid argument. There are third party sources supporting Hutchins' various notable activities that collectively make an article worth having. Ground Zero | t 20:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added references from the Marietta Daily Journal and USAToday, links to WSBtv.com and profiles of Hutchins in Blackpressusa.com and Atlanta Magazine, and a link to the transcript of Hutchins' appearance on CNN Election Center. This addresses the concern about reliable third party sources, and it also demonstrates that Hutchins is a figure of significant local importance, and of not insignficant national importance. Would Wikipedia be a better source of information by removing this article? I, for one, had never heard of him before seeing this article, and now I know something aout the man. Ground Zero | t 20:41, 27 April 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.