Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Crites


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Mike Crites

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per NPOL and no significant and notable sources, this politician is not notable. A general News search found nothing so I ranged it as far as 2008 and found a few results while Books also found a few results. Browser also found results along with thefreelibrary and highbeam about that Attorney General campaign. Basically almost of the information about him is through the one campaign which he only got 38% of votes and was not a winner (his campaign website is non-existent now of course). SwisterTwister  talk  04:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

*Keep He was a United States Attorney, people. That's pretty notable. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As always, a candidate for office does not qualify to keep an article on Wikipedia just for being a candidate — in this case, his ability to qualify for an article will rest entirely on being able to properly source him over WP:LAWYERS for his role as a federal United States Attorney. But that hasn't been done here — the content about his work in that role is entirely unsourced, and is pitched noticeably toward a promotional, rather than encyclopedic, writing tone (the place for an extended background description of what a United States Attorney's basic job duties are would be in the article on United States Attorneys, not the BLP of Crites himself.) This could potentially be sandboxed in draftspace to allow editors an opportunity to get it up to snuff on the US Attorney criterion, I'm certainly willing to reconsider my view if the sourcing for the US Attorney criterion can be improved before this discussion hits closure, and no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can fix it later on — but the unsuccessful candidacy counts for nothing, and as things stand right now the role that would earn him an article is completely unsourced. So under Wikipedia's contemporary inclusion and sourcing standards, it can't stay in articlespace in this state anymore. Delete unless the sourcing can be improved to put the weight where it belongs. Keep per improved evidence of notability and sourcing found by E.M. Gregory below. Bearcat (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No claim of notability ever entitles a person to keep an unsourced article just because they exist(ed). Being a US Attorney would certainly make him eligible for a properly sourced article, if one could actually be written — but that's not what this article, in its existing state, is. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck as by blocked sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Bearcat, are you looking for secondary sources showing the subject was a U.S. Attorney (see here (Article mentions the subject was a US Attorney for Southern Ohio) or this article that gives specific dates for his tenure (CRITES HOPES TO RESTORE HONOR TO OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL POST or are you looking for more than  the many newspaper articles that stated during the subject's 2008 campaign that he was a former U.S. Attorney? My sense is that there are sufficient sourcing for the US Attorney criterion. Enos733 (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles that covered him as a candidate, and merely happened to mention his work as a US Attorney by way of background — in exactly the same way as his prior career would have been referenced if he'd been a butcher or a baker or a candlestick maker instead — don't count toward demonstrating the notability of that prior work. What it would take is coverage in which being a US Attorney is itself the crux of the coverage. According to the article, he was a US Attorney from 1986 to 1993 — so any coverage that would actually contribute toward making him notable as a US Attorney would have to be dated mainly to the 1980s and 1990s. To make him notable as a US Attorney, the article can't rest entirely (or even mostly) on sourcing in which "was a US Attorney" is just presented as background trivia on a guy who's getting covered in the context of the unsuccessful election campaign — it has to be coverage in which the US Attorney work, in its own right, is The Thing He's Getting Coverage For. Bearcat (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I can't see any value in that distinction. If he satisfies POLITICIAN, and I think his position as a federal prosecutor is a "national office", it doesn't matter whether the significant coverage is for that office, or whether it is for something else. There is coverage for his role as a US attorney in this source published in 1990 where it is suggested that with his indictments up an "incredible" 376% in five years he is "probably the top in the country right now". James500 (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually am torn about this. On one hand, I agree with James500 that coverage is coverage, and that there should not be a time limit on when a subject's notability is established. At the same time, some of the background of a candidate is routine coverage of a campaign (and why I prefer pages about campaigns/specific races rather than pages about candidates running for down-ballot offices). What we do know about the position of U.S. Attorney is that 1) not every US Attorney has a wikipedia page (and I am not convinced there is sufficient secondary source material on each office-holder to grant automatic notability for just holding the office) 2) each US Attorney is confirmed by the US Senate, so there exists a fair amount of primary source material (potentially documents of nomination, transcripts of committee deliberations, recorded votes) 3) once in office, (assumed) the coverage of the US Attorney would primarily be routine in nature (i.e. US Attorney indicts X) and any mention about the US Attorney would be in passing (such as "today US Attorney Jane Smith charged"), unless the US Attorney was involved in a significant/very newsworthy case when coverage might include a more substantial background of the US Attorney. --Enos733 (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Notable per Enos733. James500 (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It was indeed a lousy page that read like campaign advertising when nominated. However, Does deletion help? articles about old statewide political races, former United States Attorneys, and the like are definitionally useful to researchers using WP.  Moreover, what were the odds that a former United States Attorney in a state the size of Ohio would fail to have reliable sources?  I did a little sourcing.  More needs to be done.  Many sources come from the year Crites fell on his sword for the GOP (by running for Atty. Gen. in a race the Party didn't fund because they knew they wouldn't win).  But there is coverage from before and after.  I put up enough to demonstrate what's out there, not enough to make it a really good article. Plus, turns out he's the guy who prosecuted Pete Rose - Warning: this may make Reds fans ineligible to !Vote in this AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, "Mike" appears to have been his "politician" name. Necessary also to search "Michael". E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, now that's the kind of work that gets me to change my mind. Prosecuted Pete Rose, you say. (No COI here, not a Reds fan.) Original vote stricken. Bearcat (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per evidence of notability and sourcing found by E.M. Gregory, which I did not find in my initial search for the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2015 (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.