Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omar Passons


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 16:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Omar Passons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Politician who has yet to hold public office, doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. Only minor local coverage, most of them covering his announcement to run, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Entire Political Positions section is sourced from his campaign website. WikiVirusC (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed the campaign literature Largoplazo (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This article has been inappropriately flagged as a candidate for deletion, despite having eight distinct cited sources, which is more than most articles on Wikipedia. This article should be kept. The subject of this article is notable because of his significant coverage in the press, some of which can be seen here, and which started well before he declared his candidacy. Omar has raised the third-most money of the candidates for this seat. Narayansg (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Narayansg


 * Delete doesn't meet WP:NPOL. is substantial coverage not related to the election, but everything else is local election coverage that is routinely ignored for the purposes of GNG.  Due to the obvious promotional editing I don't think a reasonable page can be maintained at this time. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I am less than convinced winning the election would lead to default notability, but being a candidate clearly does not make one notable in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Brief mentions do not equal significant coverage. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS never works as a valid argument.  Donald1659 (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep According to WP:NPOL, "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 of the article". The subject of this article has met that, as has been previously demonstrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narayansg (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete only sources are directly related to the campaign. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. SportingFlyer (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL. In general, candidates for public office must receive national or international coverage, well beyond what is normally expected of a candidate, such as Christine O'Donnell, or meet the notability standards before coverage of their election. A large reason for this is because BLP's "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy," WP:BIO and that there is a distinction made between high- and low-profile individuals (of which most candidates and local elected officials are).  --Enos733 (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — he would need to either have preexisting notability for other reasons before becoming a candidate, or be reliably sourceable to an unusual volume of coverage that marked him out as significantly more notable than the norm for this level of significance. And a county board of supervisors is not an office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass either — so even if he wins the seat, he would still need to be sourced to an unusual volume of coverage that marked him out as significantly more notable than the norm for county supervisors before being a county supervisor qualified him for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of civic leadership roles and TWO profiles that ran in 2016, before he was a candidate for office: Best of San Diego 2016: Omar Passons, San Diego CityBeat, & Former foster child returns many favors a detailed bio that ran in the San Diego Union-Tribune.  Note that I removed the self-sourced material and removed some election hype.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And what in either of those two new sources would constitute a notability claim per se? If all we had to do to get a person over WP:GNG was show that they had received two pieces of human interest coverage in their own local media, but it wasn't necessary to show that there was an encyclopedically noteworthy context for that coverage, then as I've pointed out many times before we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour who got local media coverage a few years back for finding a pig in her front yard, and every kid who ever tried out for their high school football team despite having less than the standard number of toes, and pretty much everybody who ever opened a restaurant. So if the coverage isn't in a noteworthy context, and instead we're going for "just because media coverage exists", then we do have to show quite a bit more than just two pieces of it and/or a much wider geographic range than just the local media in the subject's own hometown. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete- fails WP:POLITICIAN, only has local news coverage which can be expected for a candidate running for office.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2018 (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.