Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Piccillo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jim Piccillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Subject hasn't held political office yet, and the article is way too much like a campaign message. His claim to fame, as far as I can tell, is that he was mentioned in a New York Times article--with a picture, sure, but that's all. Once he introduced Biden as "John McCain," and the St. Petersburg Times ran a short article on him. I'm being exhaustive, since I foresee a tendentious AfD. But the bottomline is simple: the subject is not notable and the article should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I quote cr. 3 of WP:POLITICIAN, "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." What this person is, is a political candidate who I believe has enough sources out there about him to confer WP:N. The nom listed 2 sources and I will ad more; [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- This looks like an impressive list, but appearances are deceptive: passing mentions, for the most part--and most of them riding on the Biden gaffe and dependent on each other or, worse, just copies/repostings. The Huffington Post article, for instance, merely reposts the NYT article. That one paragraph from The Story, what is that? a bulletin board or a contact ad? The paragraph and a half from the CBS story also seems to come right out of the NYT (and, mind you, they don't talk about him as a politician, just as a disgruntled Republican). The USA Today "article" is simply a reposting of the Tampa Bay article. Marcus, you know I have in the past appreciated your search work, but this is not one of those cases. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't blame you for not liking the ref work I found, as I re-read I realize that these sources are for the most part terrible in fact the last one isn't even in English. I guess thats what happens when I decide to edit having not slept in 48 hours. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Marcus, that's one of the reasons I like you so much--your obsessive compulsion! Thanks for trying to establish notability for this person, and thanks for reconsidering. Now, you know what you need to do--natti natti! Drmies (talk) 04:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't blame you for not liking the ref work I found, as I re-read I realize that these sources are for the most part terrible in fact the last one isn't even in English. I guess thats what happens when I decide to edit having not slept in 48 hours. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This looks like an impressive list, but appearances are deceptive: passing mentions, for the most part--and most of them riding on the Biden gaffe and dependent on each other or, worse, just copies/repostings. The Huffington Post article, for instance, merely reposts the NYT article. That one paragraph from The Story, what is that? a bulletin board or a contact ad? The paragraph and a half from the CBS story also seems to come right out of the NYT (and, mind you, they don't talk about him as a politician, just as a disgruntled Republican). The USA Today "article" is simply a reposting of the Tampa Bay article. Marcus, you know I have in the past appreciated your search work, but this is not one of those cases. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He got some coverage for calling Biden McCain and for switching parties, and some more recent mentions for being present at events (ie. campaigning) but I didn't see any substantial coverage that meets our guidelines for notability in any of the sources I looked at including those suggested above. If these are some with substantial coverage please point them out and I am happy to reconsider. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Coverage for calling Biden McCain was due to Biden's notability, at a public event, not Piccillo's. Nothing substantial in coverage to show notability. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the sources, he meets the GNG, and he is a political figure, so there is no BLP problems. And conveniently,he has been engaged in more than one event. why do we have the guideline if we;'re not going to use it.? Should we specifically say in the WP:N page, this does not apply to people? Instead I see arguments that he shouldn't actually be notable, and therefore the coverage is irrelevant--I'm not sure there isn't some merit there, but arguing on that basis is quite a change from WP:N. DGG (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi DGG, I hope you don't think I was putting the cart before the horse. Yes, he has been engaged in more than one event, but I find the coverage lacking--I don't find those sources to have significant, in-depth coverage, and it seems to me that too much of it is dependent on one paragraph in the NYT and one gaffe. OK, that's more than one event--but those events are tiny. The NYT article, for instance, and everything that depends on it, has no bearing whatsoever on this person's notability as a politician, and doesn't make him notable as any other kind of entity. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Of course you get some coverage simply by running. Doesn't make you notable. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Niteshift36 (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Non-notable failed candidate, fails WP:POLITICIAN, lacks substantial coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2009 (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.