Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Mathews (Politician)


 * 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. –Juliancolton Talk  ·  Review  00:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter Mathews (Politician)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable politician. I've deleted this article once before as blatant advertising, but thought I would bring it here for further review. Article does not cite any reliable sources and I cannot find any for this write-in candidate. TN X Man 20:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as spam. The text has clearly been pasted from his election material (which is the sole reference). The guy will be notable, if he wins, but just being a candidate is not enough to make it worth keeping and rewriting. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold on! I just noticed the date on this. The election was in 2006. Why is he still campaigning? Has he got a time machine? Its still spam though. On the plus side, it is nice to see a politician with his hand in his own pocket. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete A7 and salt. Recreation of previously speedied content. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. AngoraFish   木  21:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. He wasn't even the candidate -- Juanita Millender-McDonald was, and she won.
 * For what it's worth, the article was created 21 March 2009 by an SPA. It's clear that the article is not a 2006 remnant. The guy presumably is planning to run again. Regardless, still fails WP:POLITICIAN. AngoraFish   木  21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete and Salt per above. Tavix (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Rebuttle Peter Mathews in the last election won 17% of the 34th district (according to the Secretary of State, California) as a write in a ballot in the 2008 elections making him a contender against incumbent Laura Richardson. Before that in 1996 he lost the election by only 6 points. Peter Mathews is currently ON THE BALLOT for the 2010 Congressional Elections making him a leading contender against incumbent Laura Richardson. Peter Mathews was the leading organizer and founder of an organization which protested the rising tuitions in California Community Colleges in the early 90s.If you also go to the youtube channel Power4People, Mathews has been interviewed a myriad of occasions by NBC news.

He doesn't have a time machine but it's worth mentioning that there is no harm in rerunning for a Congressional seat Daniel. Abe Lincoln lost several House elections before he was elected, what Mathew's is doing is purely American. And yes it is nice to see a politician with his hand in his pocket.

Angora. He has met most of the requirements. He is a viable local candidate which won 17% of the popular vote in a rather large district in 2008 and lost by 6 points in a previous election in 1996. He has been interviewed by NBC as a political commentator. For the special 2008 edition of Esquire, Peter Mathews was nominated as a better candidate over incumbent Laura Richardson.

Granted, the page has some holes for now, due to it being started up but in due time we'll be able to incorporate more into the page. Within a few weeks, which like most wikipedia pages, will be sufficient time to get things going.

For more information hear are some links pertaining to what I have stated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti5Oe8Y66q4&feature=channel_page (2003 NBC Interview about the war) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W__G9FHElEc&feature=channel_page (2004? NBC Interview North Korea) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38V26JXVZJQ&feature=channel_page (2007 NBC Interview about the Election)

He has had plenty of Media exposure and if you were to check the California Sate Secretary website and look up the 37th districts results, you will find Peter Mathews.

'''Changes"" Request of Daniel, i have re-edited the page to incorporate more information. As for the biography I dont have much after that, since I'm a supporter of the campaign since he lives in my district. I'll try to see if I can write up more or ask others to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonjinsukchang (talk • contribs) 22:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

--Jasonjinsukchang (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonjinsukchang (talk • contribs) 21:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What district is he running in? The article states 37th, but you said 34th. Pburka (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment losing candidates in a nominating primary certainly don't even warrant a Wikipedia article, indeed, unsuccessful candidates in the full election don't warrant an article either. Whether or not he is on the ballot for 2010 is irrelevant. Novelty interviews, endorsements. etc are all part of election-related dross and not sufficient to comply with Wikipedia's core policy on notability. If he actually wins a seat in the 2010 election any editor will be more than welcome to recreate the article then. AngoraFish   木  22:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

""Reponse to AngoraFish""

The wikipedia guidelines say nothing that he has to win, he just has to have a sufficient backing within the community, and his recent numbers show that he does have a decent backing. If you actually see the NBC interviews, all but one have nothing pertaining to his election. Instead they are discussing foreign affairs or the Bush doctrine. Peter Mathews is a political figure as well as a NBC regular guest political commentator which makes him a viable contender for Wikipedia.--Jasonjinsukchang (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable person, pure spam andy (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam. Salt Edward321 (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Response" Petter Mathews is a notable person. If he's been on television multiple occasions as a political commentator, been endorsed by magazines such as Esquire, gained a large following, he is by definition a notable person. Not to you or to a majority of America, but to the 37th district of California and Southern California. Not too sure why most of you guys are still refuting this fact and accepting other pages that dont even have even as close of a following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonjinsukchang (talk • contribs) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. 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." You've not provided such references. And even if you had the article is clearly intended to be promotional. andy (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as unelected and generally not notable, though I would reconsider if significant coverage in reliable sources (especially outside the area) was found. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:POLITICIAN being only a candidate, with no other significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a place for free advertising, and there are massive conflict of interest and neutrality problems here. – Toon (talk)  15:36, 23 March 2009 (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.