Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Weinholtz


 * 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 merge to Utah gubernatorial election, 2016. as suggested, & according to our usual practice  DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Mike Weinholtz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. WP:BLP1E of a person whose only demonstrated or properly sourced notability claim is being an as yet unelected candidate in a pending election. This does not get a person over WP:NPOL in and of itself; if you cannot provide credible and properly sourced evidence that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. And the sourcing here is fully 60 per cent to sources that cannot carry notability at all, such as his own primary source campaign website, a raw table of primary election results, a non-notable blog and his inclusion in a business directory to which he was able to submit himself -- and of the four pieces of real media coverage here, all four of them are routine local coverage of the gubernatorial race itself in media outlets that have an obligation to cover that gubernatorial race, and none of them nationalize enough to demonstrate that he's getting more than routine local coverage. Which means that the sourcing here does not meet the standard necessary to claim that he gets over WP:GNG in lieu of not getting over NPOL — it all just makes him a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at BLP1E, do you see advice to merge? Unscintillating (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your nomination states (emphasis in original), "...his inclusion in a business directory to which he was able to submit himself".  This is at a minimum a proof by assertion, including the part that this is a "directory".  Bloomberg L.P. is one of the most respected news organizations in the world.  The statement by S&P Global Market Intelligence on this page is, "The information and data displayed in this profile are created and managed by S&P Global Market Intelligence, a division of S&P Global.'  Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Including someone in a directory is not the same as publishing substantive coverage about him — a directory listing is what the page is, as can be plainly verified just by looking at it. And S&P Global is a "source" where any CEO of any company can submit himself for inclusion in their database. S&P may be who actually formats the submitted information, but the information itself is submitted for inclusion by the CEO or somebody on his staff. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Although the word "substantive" is used at WP:N, the sentence is part of a template that says, "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." As for being "plainly verified" by looking, I tested the hypothesis by looking at the page, but I see nothing that identifies this as a "directory".  The page says that the "Michael Weinholz: Executive Profile & Biography" was created by "S&P Global Market Intelligence".  The page says that it is "©2016 Bloomberg L.P".  Unscintillating (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * One of us is speaking a different language than the other one is, obviously, because I fail to see anything about that page which would in any way mark it as not a directory: the whole thing is structured very nearly identically to a LinkedIn profile, and even the one section that actually has anything more than one bulletpointed item in it has a decidedly advertorial slant to (e.g. "In just six years, Mr. Weinholtz has transformed CHG from a predominantly single-lined provider of temporary physician staffing (locum tenens) into the healthcare staffing leader for professionals of all types") rather than representing neutral attention. It's not a news article about him; it's a résumé. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * With a Google search on [directory definiton], Google provides, "1. a book listing individuals or organizations alphabetically or thematically with details such as names, addresses, and telephone numbers." The top link from dictionary.com gives, "Meaning 'alphabetical listing of inhabitants of a region' is from 1732; listing of telephone numbers is from 1908."  The next link is from Merriam Webster's, and looking at the web page gives as the learner's definition, " a book that contains an alphabetical list of names of people, businesses, etc." The "full" definition reads, "
 * 1.a: a book or collection of directions, rules, or ordinances
 * 1.b: an alphabetical or classified list (as of names and addresses)
 * 2. a body of directors
 * 3. folder 3b
 * Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I could add articles from both the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News ripping on Weinholtz for his biggoted campaign actions against Mormons and his stupidity in doing so in a state where the majority of the electorate is Mormons, but they are more editorials than news reports and mainly demonstrate that he is expected to be trounced in the race, and that he himself does not seem to be even trying to win the election.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Here are the links, written by a BYU professor who wants a viable Democrat party in Utah. This might add to some level of "notability for unbelievable political stupidity", however I would only buy that argument if someone could find a source from outside Utah that would call Weinholtz out for being the political idiot that he is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was going to tap you on the nose for expressing a personal POV instead of sticking to the neutral facts of the matter — but damnit, that is pretty incredibly eyerollingly stupid. But yeah, it's still not much to hang permanent notability on by itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Without WP:NOT rationales, the topic is not a candidate for AfD, as the topic is covered at Utah gubernatorial election, 2016 and a merge is standard procedure for non-notable candidates.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Given that a person who types "Mike Weinholtz" into the search bar will get a list of search results that includes Utah gubernatorial election, 2016, and will thus get directed to the right place regardless of whether a redirect exists or not, AFD consensus for redirecting is a lot weaker and less guaranteed than it used to be ten years ago. Sometimes there's still a legitimate case for that, and that may be true here if reasons are provided for its usefulness, but it's not an automatic result of all AFDs on unelected candidates anymore (especially because such redirects do sometimes end up sitting on top of, and/or mislinking, more notable people with a stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for their name than the redirect subject has.) Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A person who types "Mike Weinholtz" into the search bar (at least in my computing environment as I can't document all possible environments) does not find the article on CHG Healthcare Services, which IMO should have been found as part of the preparation for creating this discussion by making sure that there were no alternatives to deletion for this topic. WP:Deletion policy is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.".  Unscintillating (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This reply provided no evidence that anything has changed in the last ten years. This is a proof by assertion.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You need only look at the hundreds of AFDs about unelected candidates, especially in the 2010s, which plainly demonstrate that total deletion is now a much more common outcome of an AFD on an unelected candidate than redirection to some other article is anymore. If you really need some examples, then consider Articles for deletion/Vinnie vineyard, Articles for deletion/Carly Saeedi, Articles for deletion/Pamela Sossi, Articles for deletion/Roger La Plante. I could keep cluttering this discussion up with hundreds more examples of unelected candidates for office getting deleted rather than redirected, but there's a point at which it would just be overkill. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This reply provided no evidence that "especially because such redirects do sometimes end up sitting on top of, and/or mislinking...". This is a proof by assertion.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have, just in 2016 alone, personally caught at least 50 instances of unelected candidate redirects that were being erroneously linked to for unrelated people of the same name with much stronger claims to notability than the unelected candidate had. I'm not going to go through my entire deletion log to list hundreds of examples for you, but here's one: Don Loucks, which was redirecting to St. Catharines (provincial electoral district) because a guy of that name ran and lost there in 1981, but whose only actual link in articlespace was (and still is) from Florida State Seminoles men's basketball for a guy who was the team's coach more than 70 years earlier (thus completely destroying even the already-infinitesimal possibility that they were the same guy.) Does a one-off non-winning electoral candidate really seem more notable to you than a university-level basketball coach? Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This example of Don Loucks has as the deletion edit summary, "(nn political candidate whose redirect to a candidates list is blueblocking a more notable person with a stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC)". There is no WP:DEL-REASON given for the deletion.  With the information available to a non-administrator, perhaps this was intended as a WP:IAR deletion.  However, what cannot be seen by a non-administrator is what was lost in the edit history that the deletion has hidden from view.  Something that remains unclear is why the process didn't go to WP:RFD.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage is sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG.  The argument for BLP1E is weak given the national attention given to the CEO before the candidacy, but if an editor believes that the candidacy is how he is going to be remembered, that might be an option for them to do a full merge.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is this article showing any sources which demonstrate any "national attention given to the CEO"? Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you review the sources in the article, you will see that Bloomberg.com covers him as an executive of CHG. The Wall Street Journal has interviews for him from 2002 and 2004.  According to the WSJ bio, he started a company in 1992, took it public in 1994, and "grew it into the nation’s largest healthcare staffing company" by 1997.  Were you aware of this when you nominated this article for deletion?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, as an unelected (and likely unelectable) candidate with no other real notability, he does not meet WP:NPOL. The coverage we do have is pretty much exclusively routine for a sacrificial lamb like Weinholtz.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete -- a vanity page and a WP:PSEUDO bio at this point; no indications of notability outside of being an unelected candidate. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per above discussion, especially the points by to merge to Utah gubernatorial election, 2016 and the uncomfortable truth written by, and past practice. I hate to point it out, but a progressive Democrat has almost no chance of winning in Utah in the early 21st century; the Beehive State is heavily Mormon/LDS and Conservative/Republican. For what it's worth, I had a client who was LDS, who ran and lost for office as a Democrat in Utah over 30 years ago, and he ended up moving to friendlier Upstate New York. Bearian (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd not object to merging and redirecting. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:35, 5 October 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.