Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael G. Cox


 * 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. The nominator's analysis of sources is convincing.  DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael G. Cox

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any notability. Too many of the refs are self-written and one doesn't even feature him. This is an aspirant politician who appears to have removed the PROD previously on this article. This is far too soon - better wait until dreams turn to reality before coming back to Wikipedia.  Velella  Velella Talk 20:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Many articles exist that only state someone is a political candidate. Cox has founded businesses, taught, and worked in government. The article and references can be improved. The subject is notable. Postcard Cathy (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

How do you suggest I go about improving the content of the article?PurpleCouch987 (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)PurpleCouch987

Unless a consensus I'm going to add more 3rd party sources and remove the being consider for deletion notification. I really would like to improve this article though so any input is appreciated. PurpleCouch987 (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding all the material you can find from respectable third-party sources is a great idea, and is the best way to convince others that Cox has received enough attention in such sources to deserve his own article. But please don't remove the deletion notice until this discussion has ended. FourViolas (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, well this discussion is going nowhere and seems largely pointless so... PurpleCouch987 (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987

Have we reached consensus? PurpleCouch987 (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987
 * Keep Coverage of current race provides a few sources with short bios and discussion of Cox:  . Narrowly meets WP:GNG. FourViolas (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete candidates for the state legislature will get coverage. We do not create articles until they are elected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Have we reached consensus? PurpleCouch987 (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   13:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - have we reached consensus ? Have we heck. We have a politician for whom Wikipedia editors can only find a single independent ref that even hints at notability (the piece in Roll Call) and that is in a very niche publication for Capitol Hill. All the rest are his own web-site, Linkedin or similar which do not convey any notability. Now if we could find independent discussions of him in the  New York Times or something similar, that might change the game  Velella  Velella Talk 16:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That is your perspective. The majority of the comments on this page support the article. PurpleCouch987 (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987


 * Additionally you are simply incorrect about the sources. The majority of the sources do not come from his campaign page but from third party websites such as legistorm, newspapers, and the Maxwell website. PurpleCouch987 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987


 * OK, I guess you would like the details. Refs 1 a,b,c,d,e,f and 8 are all his own web site. Ref 2 a,b ,c,d, and e are from his Maxwell School Alumnus page - good for facts but not for notability, Ref 3 simply confirms that he exists and is presumably paid a salary - no notability there, Ref 4 is a YouTube page - not acceptable as a ref in Wikipedia, Ref 5 is his own Linkedin page, Ref 6 makes no mention of Cox, Ref 7 is the Heard on the Hill ref mentioned above and is the nearest we get to notability, and Ref 8 is back to his own web-site.  Velella  Velella Talk 17:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability has been agreed upon by the other commenters. You are the sole holdout. As far as I can tell there is no explicit statement indicating that the consensus has to be unanimous. I appreciate your commitment to the quality of Wikipedia and I'm very impressed by your record. I've looked through many of the article you have written...good stuff! That said your personal feelings about this page do not outweigh the consensus. I think this discussion is closed. Again, thank you for your commitment. PurpleCouch987 (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987
 * Wow, I don't remember being that patronised since I left school ! Nevertheless, this is not about how I feel about this article - I have no feelings about this article. It is about the way Wikipedia assess notability and the application of those rules to this article. The assessment is not up to you as you are a substantial author of the article and it is not up to you to close this debate - that is for other, uninvolved experienced editors to do.  Velella  Velella Talk  20:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, other "experienced" editors have established notability and stopped commenting on this page. Therefore your views are in the minority. I did not mean to be patronizing but if you want to take it that way thats fine by me. This discussion is effectively over - nobody else has commented for over a week. Unless I get new feedback by tomorrow I am going to remove the deletion notice. PurpleCouch987 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC) PurpleCouch987
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, hi, please don't remove the afd notice, thats for administrators (or under some circumstances, really experienced editors) to do, you might want to have a look at Help, my article got nominated for deletion! and Introduction to deletion process, i have found these essays very helpful. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2016 (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.