Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Manchik: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:22, 13 August 2018

Joe Manchik

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. He's a morbid curiousity, so also WP:NOTNEWS. Including the Reason quote about shaming of third party voters appears to suggest this article pushing a POV. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he's run in enough elections I can't support a redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio, 2018. He's clearly not notable enough for a stand-alone article; the coverage consists of Ballotpedia (and similar directories of candidate), local [1] or trivial mentions, and news of the weird coverage. WP:NPOL is not met, and there's no coverage that's not about a campaign. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. There is sufficient RS coverage to overcome. NPOL says "local political figures who have received significant press coverage", this guy merits this based on current citations, but certainly under GNG if not NPOL. I haven't even included in the article that he was the #1 trending Twitter topic on U.S. national election day. There is a serious and objective candidate platform analysis in Mansfield News Journal alongside the D and R candidates, for instance. Also, "morbid curiousity" or "news of the weird" are not policy based objections: we have FAs about weird things and people who claim all sorts of ancestries. Even a community-judged notable Pleiadian. And BTW this is international coverage now including The Independent, so scratch the argument that his notability is "merely local". ☆ Bri (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Trending topics on Twitter = WP:NOTNEWS. No WP:LASTING impact of this morbid curiosity. And "U.S. national election day" is the first Tuesday of November (unless that's Nov. 1, in which case election day is Nov. 8). This past Tuesday was a primary election day with contests in only four of the 50 states. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I think his ~~notoriety~~ notability will last, since he's vowed to run again for office, but much of the coverage is condescending. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NPOL, WP:POLOUTCOMES, and WP:NOTNEWS. Being a trending topic for a news cycle is different than being an encyclopedic topic. Marquardtika (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't normally keep losing candidates who aren't otherwise notable under WP:BLP1E amongst other things. He doesn't independently pass WP:GNG and he was only notable for a couple news cycles. As noted what sigcov of him existed was mostly for curiosity reasons as well. SportingFlyer talk 06:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The election was notable, and got more coverage because it was a special election. The coverage was of the election, not of Manchik as an individual. Coverage that mentions someone in the light of an election does not establish notability for them, and that is the only type of coverage that Manchik received.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect to the special election that he was a candidate in. As with many other candidates for office that either haven't won or didn't win the general election (Jane Raybould, Bill Lee (Tennessee politician), Rebekah Kennedy, etc.) they've all been redirected to the race where they were a candidate in (Not a point that would help for deletion/redirection but just examples of prior failed candidates whose articles were deleted). Manchik did not spoil the election, he didn't even receive 1,500 votes nor did he receive any national attention unlike the Democrat and Republican. The article is short and has no information that anyone can't infer just by looking at the election results (didn't spoil, nobody knew who he was, etc.). My points make a valid argument, I would think. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 02:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage here just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of enduring public interest who readers will still be looking for ten years from now. GNG does not mean that we keep an article about every single person whose name happens to pop up in the news cycle for a day or two — we judge notability on the basis of enduring impact, and don't just keep everybody who can show two or more media hits. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 *'''Delete''' The election was notable, and got more coverage because it was a special election. The coverage was of the election, not of Manchik as an individual. Coverage that mentions someone in the light of an election does not establish notability for them, and that is the only type of coverage that Manchik received.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 23:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 *'''Strong Redirect''' to the special election that he was a candidate in. As with many other candidates for office that either haven't won or didn't win the general election ([[Jane Raybould]], [[Bill Lee (Tennessee politician)]], [[Rebekah Kennedy]], etc.) they've all been redirected to the race where they were a candidate in (Not a point that would help for deletion/redirection but just examples of prior failed candidates whose articles were deleted). Manchik did not spoil the election, he didn't even receive 1,500 votes nor did he receive any national attention unlike the Democrat and Republican. The article is short and has no information that anyone can't infer just by looking at the election results (didn't spoil, nobody knew who he was, etc.). My points make a valid argument, I would think. [[User:Redditaddict69|<b style="color:#3399FF">Redditaddict69</b>]] [[User talk:Redditaddict69|<sup style="color:#339900">(click here if I screwed up stuff again)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Redditaddict69|<sup style="color:3300FF">(edits)</sup>]]  02:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
+*'''Delete'''. The coverage here just makes him a [[WP:BLP1E]], not a topic of enduring public interest who readers will still be looking for [[WP:10YT|ten years from now]]. GNG does not mean that we keep an article about every single person whose name happens to pop up in the news cycle for a day or two — we judge notability on the basis of ''enduring'' impact, and don't just keep everybody who can show two or more media hits. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 16:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)