Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Magaziner


 * 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   no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 00:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Seth Magaziner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Yet another WP:BLP of a person whose only substantive claim of notability is his candidacy in a party primary for an upcoming election. As always, candidates are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot adequately demonstrate that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before they became a candidate, then they must win the election, not merely run in it, to qualify. And I mean the general election, not just the primary. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but he's not entitled to keep a campaign brochure on Wikipedia in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

 Under WP:POLITICIAN I think Seth qualifies as a major local political figure with significant press coverage. The RI treasurer is a surprisingly powerful position which has launched the incumbent into the national spotlight (probably more significant than governor last term). This race is a battle between a scion of a national democratic family and a very RI political family. Lots of TV coverage, though our pathetic local paper doesn't generate a lot of primary source material. While article is clearly initiated by the person or his campaign it sticks to the facts. No personal connection, just a voter the day before the primary researching candidates.Jes1974 (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep He's just won the Democratic primary for Treasurer. The coverage he'll get will increase and because of the state's strong Democratic lean, he's almost certain to win the general election. Tiller54 (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not deal in the realm of election predictions, per WP:CRYSTAL. If you cannot adequately demonstrate and source that he was already notable enough to have an article before he was a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for an article until he wins the election, regardless of how "likely" anybody thinks his victory is or isn't. There have been many elections over the years in which the candidate who appeared "likely" or "certain" to win actually lost, for one reason or another; there have been some elections in which the candidate died before election day; and there have been many elections in which the question of which candidate was likelier to win depended on which pundits you chose to believe. I'd have no objection to sandboxing this for future retrieval, if his victory's really that likely — but advance predictions about the likelihood of his eventual victory have no bearing on our inclusion rules, because advance predictions don't always pan out accurately. Bearcat (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if he doesn't win, I'm confident that there's enough coverage in reliable sources found in the article and after a cursory search to pass WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN:, , , , , , , , , , . Tiller54 (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a longstanding principle of AFD that except in extremely rare circumstances on the order of the international media firestorm that swallowed Christine O'Donnell, coverage of a candidate's campaign itself does not contribute to whether the candidate gets over WP:GNG or not. Local media have an obligation to cover local elections, so campaign coverage is not a thing that some candidates get and others don't — all candidates always get media coverage, so our policy of not allowing unelected candidates to have articles would be completely nullified and we'd have to keep every article about every unelected candidate in every election. Rather, campaign-related coverage falls under WP:BLP1E and WP:ROUTINE — short of an O'Donnell scenario, if the candidate didn't already meet an inclusion rule before they became a candidate, then coverage of the campaign itself cannot boost their encyclopedic notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 14:53, 14 September 2014 (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.