Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Faulkner


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Michel Faulkner

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This is an article for a person who is a candidate for office but otherwise lacks notability. WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3 addresses this point specifically, that just being a nominee does not automatically confer notability. This article also fails the general notability guidelines, as sources are to the personal campaign site, his ministry's website, and generic data listings in the NYTimes, Cook Political, and CQ Politics, plus a single story in a local news affiliate. I will also note that the Times forecasts a near 60-point margin for this race. Per the further explanation at WP:POLITICIAN on what to do with non-notables, a merger to the appropriate district page is a viable option to deletion. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * PLEASE NOTE: THAT TARC HAS NOT EVEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT FAULKNER QUALIFIES AS A FORMER NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYER FOR THE NEW YORK JETS. Please see: American football/Canadian football figures are presumed notable if they 1.Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league. This notability rule for professional football players can be reviewed here: Football, WP:NFOOTBALL.--InaMaka (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least temporarily. I did not do any independent research, so I can't confirm or deny any of the local coverage criterion, but this seems like an extremely poor time to nominate this page for deletion.  This page has been up since March, and you wait until a week before the election to nominate for deletion?  And no, I'm not accusing anyone of being partisan or even arguing against your nomination, it just seems like a common sense decision to not even risk making Wikipedia look partisan.  To me at least, I'm not in a rush, and it makes way more sense to wait until next week to nominate this article. Bds69 (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP. Per Bds69. There is no rush to kill this article.  Election Day is a mere 7 days away.  If the outcome of the election is as clear as the nominator claims then it will not hurt Wikipedia to wait seven days and let the clock run out on the contest.  Also, removing a political bio 7 days before an election does hurt Wikipedia in that it gives the impression that Wikipedia is a hotbed of partisan tit for tat.  Just wait it out and it can be redirected or deleted in 8 days.--InaMaka (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete in 7 days - this article does not come close to being notable, but I don't want Wikipedia to be falsely accused of attempting to influence an election (in which Faulkner reportedly has 0 chance of winning). Racepacket (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP He is the GOP candidate for the house, there are some far less important/ notable people on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.244.18 (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just want to interject some basic facts here. The article has been nominated for deletion under the Politician notability rules, but please keep in mind that Mr. Faulkner qualifies for his own article in Wikipedia independently as a former professional football player for the New York Jets.  So the point of this discussion is mute.  Mr. Faulkner is PRESUMED to be notable under the rules for professional athletes.  Please see: |Professional American Football Players (NFL).  The fact that this discussion is even taking place in an example of one editor, Tarc, attempting to destroy the work of editors.  When you combine the fact that Faulkner played for a full season with the New York Jets, his coverage in this campaign by the NY Times, New York Daily News, and New York Post then there is really isn't anything to discuss.--InaMaka (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP. NFL football player, so the point is moot (not mute). Flatterworld (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, but passes WP:ATHLETE. It appears he was also an All-American in college: . Location (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ATHLETE. Ray  Talk 05:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite to emphasize his actual notability per WP:ATHLETE, rather than his hypothetical notability as a WP:POLITICIAN. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 05:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 05:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 05:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as the subject of significant coverage by reliable third-party sources, with a great deal of independent national coverage from The New York Times, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and dozens of other sources. Nomination was made after the NYT profile so the nominator's search for sources may have been less that thorough. - Dravecky (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - former pro athlete. Carrite (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2010 (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.
 * 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.