Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Riccardi

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 redirect to New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2017. Consensus is against this staying its own article, but the redirection is uncontested and apparently has precedent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Riccardi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like WP:TOOSOON to me: he is just a candidate for office. Other claims to nottability look insufficient to me. TheLongTone (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally as long as it is not a local election, but that of governship of a major state i believe as per WP:NPOL he definetely qualifies for a stand alone. Celestina007 (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: In that case you are wrong. WP:NPOL actually says that "Just being...an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" AusLondonder (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate for office with no other notability. No in-depth coverage outside routine election news. AusLondonder (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder , As per WP:NPOL we understand that; "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"

That It does not gurantee notability does not auto-translate to he/she not being notable as line 8 above implies and explains. That aside, even on the grounds of WP:BASIC i feel this page merits a stand alone. Celestina007 (talk) 1:16, 05 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected minor party candidate who has predicted that he will lose. The coverage is run of the mill. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete even major party candidates for governor are not 100% passes of GNG, although there is probably enough indepth coverage for most to pass. Minor party candidates for governor are orders of magnitude below passing GNG considering how little impact minor parties have in US politics. This is from an editor who voted for the Constitution Party candidate for US president in 2016, so I have no animus against the party, I just recognize that Riccardi does not meet notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates for office are not guaranteed articles just for being candidates — and being a candidate for governor isn't an automatic notability boost either, especially if one is a minor-party candidate. Even for Democratic or Republican candidates for governor, the notability usually derives from having already held another notable office prior to running for governor — such as lieutenant governor, or attorney general, or a seat in the state legislature or the US Congress, or mayor of one of the state's biggest cities — rather than from the fact of running for governor per se. But there's no preexisting notability for other reasons being demonstrated here, nor enough reliable source coverage that's substantively about him to grant him a special exception: of the 13 footnotes here, five are unnecessary reduplications of his own primary source campaign website, one is a raw table of the prior election results from 2013, three are unnecessary repetitions of two of the others, and two are basic and WP:ROUTINE overviews of all the gubernatorial candidates rather than sources which single him out for dedicated attention. So there are really only two sources here that count toward establishing notability at all — and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen32's point cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a personal bio of a person who doesn't meet WP:NPOL and got all of 0.3% in the NJ-Gov race. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Consensus about unelected candidates is clear, although Wikipedia is ultimately the poorer for it. Carrite (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that. Thousands of people stand in elections worldwide every year. We would become flooded with campaign advertisements. AusLondonder (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2017, as is often done with failed candidates like this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue Notability is the only issue raised, and since the topic is prominent at New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2017, a notability deletion is not policy based, and the issue is a content decision. As per WP:Deletion policy, content issues don't belong at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.