Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Lesser


 * 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. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lesser

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

Tagged and deleted CSD (G11), restored and sent to AfD by deleting admin following clear consensus at DRV. Fails WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. The article is days old.  He's a major party candidate in an important election.  Surely coverage is around or is coming.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I say keep, candidate for elected office at state level for a major party.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for not only what McDonald and SmokeyJoe said but also the importance of free information in a Democracy and the fact that improved third party coverage is on the way. Willorbill1 (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC) — Willorbill1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - person is a politician who does not hold any office, has not won an election, and there are no reliable sources to establish any other form of notability. All references provided in the article verify facts but do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Gee, I live in Kansas, not Connecticuit... I'm a Libretarian, not a Democrat... I generally don't give a hoot on this particular election... I don't know anyone involved in the election in question... and I think the article reads more like a resume than an encyclopedic entry... but seriously, how is the subject not notable? This is a case where the article should be improved and not deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - per WP:BIO, Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", and I see no significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment But this isn't a "local" election--we're not talking about a county water board post here. Please don't ignore the first part of the section you referenced: "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges" -- state legislature certainly is a first-level sub-national political office.  Yes, the person in question does not hold the office yet (and may not ever), but being a candidate for one of the major parties in the US for the elected position certainly is notable.  Couple that with the second part of the reference, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" (which I believe the subject meets or is at least close enough to for me) and I'm sticking with Keep on this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - the statement about unelected officials does not restrict it to localised elections. The references provided in the article consists of his own site, blogs, and party information.  My own search of Google News didn't turn up any articles about him.  I see no reliable sources.   -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to reply --- Once again... it's not a local election. Plus I found plenty of articles from both Google and Yahoo search--but even if I didn't, Google is not the only test for notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I said that the statement for unelected candidates does not have a qualifier that says it doesn't apply if an election is national. And as for the search results, I see blog posts and whatnot.  What I am looking for are reliable sources.  I checked Google news, and the Matt Lesser showing up there appearws to be football player.  Qualifying the search further with "Democrat" gives nothing.  -- Whpq (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - Would yet another article from the Hartford Courant (that is America's oldest continuously published newspaper) or an article from Newsday fit the need for already present reliable sources? Your right in saying that 2 of the 7 sources are blogs, but neglecting to mention major newspaper articles and CT General Assembly reports written by the Office of Legislative Research does not make an article un-notable. You are also right in saying that Google and Yahoo do not present very copious results, but proper research in a topic doesn't end after failing to find results when adding "democrat" to the search terms. Maybe searching individual sites, such as the homepage of the DNC, as referenced in the article, will return a greater number of hits. Lastly, the use of political campaign sites for biographical information is not frowned upon in the wikipedia community as entries for politicians from Joe Biden to Tom Vilsack cite the aforementioned candidates campaign websites. Yet they are regarded as notable. Go Figure.Willorbill1 (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - I looked at the article from the Courant. I could find no mention of Matt Lesser anywhere in the text of the article.  And as I said earlier, the references provided are for facts, but do not represent reliable sources for establishing notability as they are not independent of the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I found no less than 40 articles on him specifically in a yahoo search. Yes, many were blogs and that also included his home page... but the bottom line is that it doesn't matter.  There is a difference between "verifiable" and "verified" -- meaning that a web search is not the only yardstick that we use.  Sure, it's an important one, but for specialist topics such as a state legislature election, it is perfectly valid to use other measures.  This candidate has enough chatter, is on a major ticket, for a major party, in a major election, that I contend that notability requirements are met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - How is an election a specialist topic? -- Whpq (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Answer by being a specific election in the state of Connecticut--those most familiar with that election would be specialists and people from, say, Canada (you) or Kansas (me) might not be in a place to best assess it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - or perhaps newwspapers which are considered reliable sources rather than blogs which aren't -- Whpq (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, perhaps. But newspapers searchable online are not the only reliable sources.  Anyway, I'm landing on keep and you're landing on delete.  Cheers!--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Update Im sure you will be pleased, especially Whpq, that I have added two more references to the article. One is an article from the Baltimore Sun and the other from a local paper, The Town Times. Both pertain directly to the election and explicitly mention both Matt Lesser and the opponent Ray Kalinowski. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willorbill1 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would further suggest you put the article in context by creating something similar to California State Assembly elections, 2008. Flatterworld (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the two memtions are in fact the same thing as the one is an excerpt of the other. And in fact, one of them is published int eh letters to the editors.  All things considered, that really doesn't hit the nail for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hold on for now. I don't think a political person who hasn't held office yet deserves an article just yet, but he might win soon. If we delete now, and he wins, we'd just have to recreate the article, which is a waste of time. If he loses, I suggest deleting it per above. DA PIE EATER (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - even though he's not won, there appears to be some evidence of notability by way of attention in the media. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Propose Closing Looks like all but one are landing on some version of Keep. It's been over a week, I suggest we close this as keep--any objections?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * An administrator will be along to close this in due course. Oh, and presumably the people who want to see the article deleted would object to that ;)  Alex Muller  22:19, 26 June 2008 (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.