Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron DiNicola


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Ron DiNicola

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable politician. This was a contested PROD (Per longstanding tradition, a mere candidate for public office with no significant "claim to fame" other than said candidacy should not have a Wikipedia article).PRehse (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as article creator. He doesn't meet WP:NPOL but I believe he meets WP:GNG. Note that the coverage cited on the article is not exclusively about him as a candidate, and notice the dates of the coverage, going back years. He has a "claim to fame" in his association with Muhammad Ali. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete He is only noted as a politician. As such he needs to meet the notability guidelines for politicians, which he does not, so we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, WP:GNG supercedes WP:NPOL. Someone can fail NPOL and meet GNG and be kept. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The "preexisting notability for other reasons" test is not passed just because you can find some preexisting journalism in which his name gets mentioned, it is passed only if and when you can find some preexisting journalism in which he was the subject — but the only pre-campaign source here which meets that standard comes from the university student newspaper of his own alma mater, which is not a notability-assisting source. And as always, unsuccessful congressional candidates don't get over GNG just because the campaign coverage exists, either, because campaign coverage of all candidates in all congressional districts always exists — so the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL, but nothing else here is properly sourced as strong evidence of preexisting notability for other reasons. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Where does it say a losing political candidate would require "preexisting notability" to be kept? How does coverage of him in his campaign declaration not count towards GNG? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Every candidate always gets some local coverage in the campaign context — so if the existence of local campaign coverage were in and of itself enough to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL by winning the election first, then we would automatically have to keep every article about every candidate, and deprecate NPOL as meaning absolutely nothing anymore. No candidate would ever be deletable at all if campaign coverage contributed to a GNG pass that exempted them from having to pass NPOL, because no candidate ever fails to get some campaign coverage. But it's not our job to be a repository of campaign brochures for unsuccessful candidates — our role is to have articles that people will still be looking for ten years from now, which means officeholders and not unsuccessful candidates. So the established consensus on candidates is, and has always been, that a candidate can certainly have an article if they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, but they have to win election to a notable office, not just run for one and lose, before they get to derive notability from a political campaign itself. Politics is one of those areas where Wikipedia is extremely vulnerable to an extremely high volume of partisan/advertorial abuse of our mission — every candidate always wants a Wikipedia article for the publicity, and every candidate's opponent always wants to dirtwash the other guy so people will vote for the opponent instead. So the rule is not that the merely expected and routine volume of local campaign coverage makes a candidate pass GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL, it is that campaign coverage does not contribute to a GNG pass at all unless and until the candidate has won the election and thereby passed GNG+NPOL together. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think being Muhammad Ali's lawyer is enough to get over the hurdle of failing WP:NPOL as none of the coverage on him in this regard is significant. SportingFlyer  talk  00:03, 13 November 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.