Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Levenson (2nd nomination)


 * 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 speedy delete. I will note that while this page has been speedy deleted as the creation of a sockpuppet, the overwhelming majority of the discussion is in support of deletion, so regardless of who creates the article in the future, it will still be eligibly for G4 deletion (if the issues here have not been addressed). Primefac (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Stewart Levenson
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Candidate only - no evidence of notability. Pam D  16:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * delete A borderline speedy though the text is clearly different from the previous round, but it still comes off as an attempt to keep the candidate to the fore. The only possible sign of real notability is the whistleblower thing, which smells of WP:BLP1E except that we don't appear to have an article. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'll grant that this doesn't qualify for speedy, as the notability claim here is completely different than it was the first time, but it's still not one that makes the article keepable. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election is not grounds for a Wikipedia article — a person has to win the election and thereby hold office, not just have his name on the ballot, to pass WP:NPOL. But this doesn't make any claim of preexisting notability that would have gotten him an article for any other reason either. So no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here entitles him to already have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not a free hosting service for campaign websites. Pburka (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I thought everything on Wikipedia was free... IvoryDinn (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Haven't you noticed the annual ads featuring Jimbo's mug, asking for cash? The servers are not free; see WP:NOTWEBHOST. Pburka (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, no, I didn't mean "without cost to someone somewhere", I meant "without charge to the general public to access and create and add to", as in "...the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"... but I think we are talking past each other. IvoryDinn (talk)
 * We still have inclusion and notability and sourcing standards to determine what contributions are or aren't appropriate. So it's not "free" in the sense of "any possible topic at all is always fair game", which is what Pburka was talking about. We're "free" in the sense of not charging a fee to read or contribute, yes, but we're not "free" in the sense of "there are no rules about what people can or cannot do on here". Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I was saying either— I like rules. I wish they applied more often.  IvoryDinn (talk)


 * Keep I realize that most of the requirements at wp:NPOL say that in the case of a political candidate,the subject has to actually win or hold office, or be his or her party's nomination, to qualify as wiki-notable as a politician, but paragraph 3 there says that a political person can also qualify as notable under other criteria such as being the subject of discussion in reliable independent secondary sources— like, for example, the Boston Globe and National Public Radio. How many people are interviewed by the Globe and NPR but still don't qualify as wiki-notable?? I am not arguing that he meets wp:NPOL and never did; I am arguing that he meets the general notability guidelines, and shouldn't that be enough?  Isn't that enough for virtually any other Wikipedia article?  He has multiple news services reporting his movements and he is showing up in the media almost daily now.  That makes him seem pretty darned notable to me!  How can it not to others, unless you decide to apply a set of criteria that will de facto exclude him as a politician?  And if a person meets the GNG but fails the subject specific requirements, doesn't that mean they usually get kept for meeting the HIGHER inclusion standard?
 * I am finding it confusing as a new editor to see my work getting lined up for deletion only because on one wants to admit that the reasons are the wrong reasons! Am getting the sense that I may not choose to stay around here very long.  Levenson's wife died of ovarian cancer; so did mine.  That was why I wanted to write about him.  And my God, he certainly looks plenty notable AS A PERSON to me!  IvoryDinn (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)  Strike sock. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Candidates for election generally do not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL just for being a candidate. Our precedents (which can change [and are expressed in WP:POLOUTCOMES ]) state that the campaign is notable per WP:BLP1E, but that the candidates are not notable by virtue of their campaign. There already exists United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2018, where some of the information about the subject could be added.  --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing his inherent notability. Not at all.  Paragraph 3 of NPOL states: 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".  The subject here, a candidate for political office, has just that kind of coverage: significant, reliable, and independent.  His being a candidate for political office should not be used to DIS-qualify him, which looks to be how this is being done here.  The subject-specific criteria are useful for including articles which would otherwise fail to meet the primary notability criteria, but not to exclude those which already do, no? (In other words, if a person who clearly qualified as a university professor decided one day to run for office, would we then delete his/ her article for not having met the notability criteria for politicians??)IvoryDinn (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right that WP:NPOL doesn't exclude subjects who pass WP:GNG. However, I believe it's generally agreed that political campaigns are news, rather than encyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Specifically, campaigns usually have little enduring notability. Pburka (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * *I get the sense that you are looking for reasons to exclude this article. "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" is not the same as "Wikipedia articles cannot be based on newspapers."  There is not, so far as I know, any policy saying that newspapers cannot be the sole basis for an article (is there?).  Plane crashes are news.  Hurricanes are news.  This news story is not a routine announcement like an obituary or a celebrity spotting, and there are tons of articles that began with only newspapers for references.  So far this one has been in the papers, on tv, and on the radio for over six months, and is ongoing (meaning that it is not "breaking news", which is what the "Wikipedia is not news" thing is meant to address).  At what point do we call that "enduring"?  Are the sources reliable?  Are they independent?  Are they verifiable?  Do they talk about the subject in depth? WP:NPOL says nothing about the likelihood of a campaign being notable or enduring.  Where is the policy page that outlines durability so that I can review it? ("...generally agreed..." makes me a little uneasy).  IvoryDinn (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Plane crashes are a good example. Wikipedia doesn't include articles for most plane crashes because they're newsworthy, but not encyclopedic. They are included if they had an enduring impact, e.g. the crash investigation led to a change in regulation or design. (I said "generally agreed" because very few, if any, things on Wikipedia have universal agreement.) Pburka (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We just had an AfD about a plane crash, the standard is much lower than you suggest, for example if there is serious damage to the aircraft or airport, or if there are fatalities, it is considered encyclopedic. Jacona (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When you say, "generally agreed", you make it sound as though you are speaking on behalf of others who may or may not exist. This is why I asked for a policy page, which so far no one has shown me.  It is very confusing to show readers a set of policy guidelines and then contradict them in practice because it is "generally agreed" that those policies don't actually apply to the thing at hand.  I also recently created an article on another politician from NH, Mark MacKenzie, a man with far less news coverage, which was approved without question.  The double standard there is remarkable.  Maybe this campaign will result in an election, maybe not, but that isn't the point.  The point is that the notability criteria appear to have been met, but that it is "generally agreed" (despite the absence of any supporting policy) that this doesn't really matter.  Please justify that for me, because I still don't get it.  IvoryDinn (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did link to the policy: WP:NOT Pburka (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OtherStuffExists. Mark MacKenzie is a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, a position which meets WP:NPOL. Perhaps a better policy to point you towards is WP:BLP1E, which is how we frequently judge candidates for elective office, that being, the election itself is notable (and information about each candidate can be placed there), but the candidates themselves may not necessarily be notable (see WP:POLOUTCOMES. --Enos733 (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Once wp:GNG has been met, WP:NPOL becomes irrelevant. Subject has been interviewed on national radio. Also, from WP:OUTCOMES:"When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources." So far, no one has suggested that any of that isn't true here. Gruenback (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)  This user has nearly no other edits  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)  Strike sock TonyBallioni (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a political advertisement. NOTADVOCACY supersedes all considerations of notability . I probably would support a NPOV article   article if he won the primary, but he hasn't even done that, so there is no point in rewriting. (I do think that major party candidates for a national-level office in a 2 party system are generally notable enough for articles.)  DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be spam from an undisclosed paid editor. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please salt this TonyBallioni (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Given the background, I think this could have been speedied. SarahSV (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. They'll get their wish if they win. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 05:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete & Salt. Do we have to clean up this guy's blp1e/advocacy/spam every campaign season? Cabayi (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable political candidate who fails to meet notability guidelines for politicians, biographies, or in general, really. Given the unwelcome and recurrent nature of this article, I'd advocate for a hefty dose of salt on the side. --Jack Frost (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. All of the sources are linked to his candidacy and talk about him being a major whistleblower which gives the impression that he may be notable over and beyond his candidacy. But not a single source is from before he announced his candidacy. This suggests that his PR team is pushing his whistleblowing to help his chances. GNG most certainly hasn't been met. Domdeparis (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete & Salt. This has been one of the most tenacious attempts in recent times to get a non notable vanity page (political election campaign) into mainspace. The original paid author  has been heavily sanctioned. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Stewart Levenson (only admins can see it). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete As per WP:TOOSOON, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTADVOCACY, plus worries over WP:COI. Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 08:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources provided really don't indicate either NPOL or GNG. This may change, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be salted in the meantime, especially given the COI and PAID concerns. Rivertorch FIREWATER  08:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete & Salt Too much volunteer time has been wasted on this candidate. Edwardx (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Upon the basis that this is undisclosed paid editing. ! dave  10:40, 23 January 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.