Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Iott


 * 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. Most of the delete !votes were citing WP:BLP1E, which has been well-refuted several times. — GorillaWarfare talk 18:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Rich Iott

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:POLITICIAN - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The re-enactment controversy was national or even international news. So, the subject is notable because of the huge number of reliable sources, which are more about the man himself than the election he was in.-LtNOWIS (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily meets the main general notability guideline, with enough coverage for us to write a proper biography of his life, not being elected does not mean he is not notable. As WP:Politician says "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." This article does have significant coverage so he does meet WP:Politician. Davewild (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The majority of the sources essentially fall under WP:1E. Shep  Talk  22:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The only issue about well sourced, biography/dominant event articles is the name of the article. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet and whether this is called "War reenactment by Rich Iott", "Rich Iott", "Rich Iott (politician)", etc., there clearly is enough reliable source material to maintain a stand alone article on the topic. Should the article be deleted because the topic fails WP:PROF, WP:BAND, WP:ATHLETE? Of course not. It is wholly wrong to predetermine a standard (e.g., WP:POLITICIAN) for the reliable source material to meet, and then seek to delete the topic because the reliable sources might not largely write what Wikipedia thinks it should have written about. Wikipedia is a follower of reliable source material, not a dictator. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - essentially a case of WP:BLP1E, as almost all of the sources relate to his unsuccessful election campaign, and most of them to the Nazi controversy. I don't see any indication of lasting notability, and failed political candidates are not inherently notable. I might consider keeping if it was moved to 'Rich Iott Nazi controversy' or something similar and refocused accordingly, but honestly I'm not sure if the event is any more notable than the person. Robofish (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete mentioned only for being a failed election candidate and a minor controversy which arose from that which falls under the terms of WP:BLP1E. Valenciano (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep reason given is not applicable. 1E contemplates a short event, the U.S. congressional campaign lasted for months. There are several other features of Iott's life that also make him notable - CEO of one of the largest food stores chain in the U.S., he was involved in a controversy surrounding the sale/merger of the food store chain which then went bankrupt, accusation that he caused the loss of 5000 local jobs, his investments in films, and his personal investment of about $2 million in the election, his status as a Tea Party candidate in the election, the possibility he will run again and of course, the national/international controversy surrounding his dressing up as a Nazi SS Sergeant in war reenactments. Reliable sources establish notability: AP, FEC, The Morning Journal, The Toledo Blade, The Toldeo Free Press, Cincinnati Enquirer, The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Daily News, Fox News, The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), the BBC, Washington Monthly, Arutz Sheva and the Business Wire. As for the Nazi dressup, in the US and other countries that is a big, notable thing; in Germany and in several other European countries he could have been arrested for it. The fact that this generated controversy, the second highest ranking Republican in the House condemned the actions, other sanctions were taken such as his removal from the Young Guns group, yet the candidate did not withdraw is also notable. No need to beat a dead horse, but this was not your average Republican candidate, and removing this info from Wikipedia can also be seen as a form of holocaust related denial. KeptSouth (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguing that he's notable is one thing, arguing that removing his bio from wikipedia is holocaust denial is something else. Unless he's a major figure in proving that the holocaust occurred it's very hard to see how you come to that dubious and ludicrous conclusion. Ultimately this guy was involved in a bit of minor controversy which only got a mention because he was an unsuccessful election candidate. Valenciano (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are completely mischaracterizing my argument - it was all about notability. I added one qualified remark at the end about how some people might see it. KeptSouth (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; I think this person passes the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment - earlier comments claim that most of the cites in the article are to the Nazi uniform controversy so I made a rough count. There are presently 43 cites altogether - 17 deal with the Nazi uniform controversy, and 26 do not. They are on the election and other matters -  6 of these deal with his other activities as a film producer, creator of a film festival, leadership in the reserves, CEO of the grocery and drug chain.KeptSouth (talk) 17:31, 30 December 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.