Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Flynn (politician)


 * 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 move to Draft:Matt Flynn (politician). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Matt Flynn (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Recreation of the article deleted at Articles for deletion/Matt Flynn (Wisconsin politician), but with entirely different sources and more content, so G4 would not apply. However, the notability guidelines still do not seem to be met -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure, I created the article, but he clearly meets the notability criterion of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." I am working on adding more content and sources, especially for the last paragraph.  To explain further, the article's subject was twice elected state chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, and it appears that others in equivalent positions are considered to meet Wikipedia's standards (see Ken Martin (politician)).  Furthermore, there is substantive media coverage of his terms as party chairman, including at least one in-depth feature and other quasi-biographical pieces, and his candidacies for Senate and Congress were extensively covered by the local media.  This isn't someone who just appears on the ballot every now and then but someone whose role in Wisconsin politics has been the subject of extensive media coverage.  Elixiri (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (draftify also acceptable.) Being a state political party chair is not an automatic notability freebie that guarantees an article just because the person existed — and while I can't actually see any of the sources being cited, because the links all lead to a login wall rather than the actual content being cited, their headlines do not suggest that Flynn was the subject of enough of them (as opposed to being namechecked or quoted in coverage of other things or people) to give him the benefit of the doubt on whether he clears WP:GNG or not. This was also, for the record, recreated shortly after another user approached me, even though I wasn't the nominator the first time and thus there was no real reason for me to be the approachee, to play the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS game because two other past chairs of the Wisconsin Democratic Party had articles without being well-sourced — which backfired, as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments routinely do, as both articles promptly got nominated for deletion too: one got kept because it was able to be sourced much better than it was or this is, while the other got deleted. And I remain convinced that the real reason that people are so determined to create an article about him is not his past role as a state political party chair, but the desire to create a campaign brochure for his current campaign in the gubernatorial primary (which is not in and of itself a reason why a person gets an article on here either.) So, as always, no prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this and/or he wins the gubernatorial election next year — but the article claims nothing about him that would get him an automatic inclusion freebie now, and the sourcing still isn't where it would need to be to get him past WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am happy to improve the article and its citations, but I guess I don't know exactly what you're looking for. Going off of the guidelines you're citing, I don't see how the current citations fall short.  Each of them either treats the subject as the story's focal point or as a key actor.  If I am understanding the guideline correctly, this material does indeed "[address] the topic directly and in detail."  Elixiri (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or move to draft space User:Elixiri, you don't help your case by using password protected links, even though such links are permissible. One problem I am having is that I am not finding some of the material you cite when I run a Proquest news archive search. For example, you cite a 1982 article "A thoughtful politician" to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, but I can't find an article by that title on proquest (this could be a glitch in the search, or reflecting th e use of more than one title by the paper.)  So I tried simple facts.  If he's notable, articles will come up with a man's birth place or his college used as keywords with his name, but my new archive search on "Matt Flynn" + Middlebush came up empty.  Searching "Matt Flynn" + Yale + Wisconsin produced only routine, local campaign coverage (Flynn touts endorsements, Democratic connections,). What we need here is In Depth coverage of activities aside form campaigning for office.  Or IN DEPTH coverage of his political roles and campaigns that show substantive impact (such as being credited with changing a law, policy, or, say, the Wisconsin Democratic Party in such a way that his role was the mover behind winning or losing elections.   Or we need to show that his candidacy is drawing SIGNIFICANT IN DEPTH attention outside Wisconsin.   You are allowed to accept a move of this article to your draft space while you work on it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2017 (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.