Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Keatley


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Richard Keatley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This individual does not meet WP:GNG for significant coverage in reliable sources. He doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN as a candidate for office who isn't in office. PROD removed by article creator. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

==individual does meet WP:GNG criteria based on coverage in Atlanta Journal Constitution, primary newspaper for city of Atlanta, see ref. 3.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. No pass of WP:Prof by this unelected politician. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

==WP:ACADEMIC added bibliography of independent research in renaissance

Dougbremner (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC) == see added bibliography of original work Dougbremner (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Retain. based on WP:ACADEMIC
 * There is no evidence that he meets the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Simply listing a bibliography of his work isn't what it takes to demonstrate a WP:ACADEMIC pass. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per CAE, non-notable candidate for office. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Local coverage of local elections always exists, so every candidate for any office could always claim to pass WP:GNG if coverage of the election campaign itself were all it took. To get an as yet unelected candidate into Wikipedia before he's declared the winner of the election, what you need to show is one of two things: either (a) he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before throwing his hat in the electoral ring, or (b) the coverage of his candidacy is exploding to Christine O'Donnell proportions. But simply including a bibliography of his academic publications in the article is not what it takes to get him over WP:ACADEMIC — it takes media coverage about his work as an academic, of which none has been shown here at all — and the amount of campaign coverage shown here is not demonstrating that his candidacy would somehow deserve special treatment over and above all the non-winning candidates in last year's election who didn't get articles for that fact in and of itself. Campaign coverage is WP:ROUTINE, not notability-conferring in and of itself, because no candidate in any election ever fails to garner at least as much coverage as has been shown here — our guiding notability principle is "what will people still need to know ten years from now?", not "who happens to be in the news today?", so politicians get Wikipedia articles for winning election and holding office, not just for running in an election. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2017 (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.