Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Realmuto


 * 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. Courcelles 22:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Richard Realmuto

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Does not meet WP:BIO. He ran for municipal office and didn't win. None of the references given refer to him as "trail-blazing" or a "rising star", they're pretty much neutral election results. ... disco spinster   talk  04:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsuccessful city council candidates are not notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Article does not comply with the neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete The notability derives from the stunning campaign, and the manner in which it resonated throughout New York State politics. Winning is not the only measure of a person. The newspaper references provide confirmation of facts, context and NPOV. C.P.Taft (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)e
 * Comment C.P. Taft is the new editor who wrote the article. Welcome to Wikipedia!  However, words like "stunning" and "shocked the political world" are not neutral. You claim the candidate nearly won, but the sources say the winner got 60% and the subject of this article got about as many votes as the remaining candidates combined.  I deduce he got about 20%.  This former candidate is not notable by Wikipedia standards. Cullen328 (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Cullen, you made a good point re the word "shocked." I changed it to "surprised," and also the word "stunning" to "striking." I certainly invite editors to assist in this process. Thank you. C.P.Taft (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Cullen, when a candidate gets more votes than seven other candidates combined, that is a striking result...and as the newspaper articles show, it was recognized by the New York press. I see many articles in Wiki that have much slimmer notability and little, if any, authentification from recognized press. That is not the case here. Thanks again for your input, I hope you see some merit in my presentation. C.P.Taft (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - can you provide some sources to back up the claim that it surprised the political world? For example, articles by major political commentators, or editorials in mainstream news. Thanks!-- K orr u ski Talk 11:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The facts are that Realmuto got trounced by a better than three-to-one margin. Reading more sources, I learned he actually got less than 15% of the vote, and less than 1200 votes total.  How can that be described accurately as "nearly winning"? The only surprise here is that the remaining candidates performed so badly.  That does not make Realmuto notable by our standard of WP:POLITICIAN.  In the best independent reliable reference, Realmuto isn't even mentioned until the 10th paragraph.  In the other reference, it is dozens of paragraphs in - I lost count.  The coverage of Realmuto in the press is exactly what would be of expected of any city council campaign anywhere.  Not notable.  Cullen328 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO, and article as written is a potential G11 candidate to boot. Ray  Talk 22:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete full of unsourced claims but sorting through the chaff, we find that he's an unsuccessful candidate for a city council and appears to have no notability or press coverage beyond that. Valenciano (talk) 01:21, 24 November 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.