Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam DeVita

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.  Sandstein  05:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam DeVita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Clearly does not meet the notability guideline as per WP:POLITICIAN Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although I agree with Mr. No Funny Nickname that simply being a politician is not grounds for notability, this politician has received coverage from every major national newspaper in Canada (National Post, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail), as well as plenty of local newspapers. WP:POLITICIAN 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'." This article meets the mentioned notability criterion. There are plenty of newspaper sources dedicated entirely to Adam DeVita, such as here and here. Note that both of these articles also appeared in print in YorkRegion.com's printed local newspaper, the Richmond Hill Liberal. Combined with the Globe and Mail, National Post, Toronto Star and Professional Engineers Ontario, we have numerous verifiable reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, clearly meeting notability. Poyani (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nomination. "Coverage" is trivial outside of yorkregion.com, his local area. PKT(alk) 19:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PKT - that seems rather unfair. With all due respect, a lot of articles dealing with Richmond Hill only have coverage by yorkregion.com, let alone any trivial coverage from National Post, Toronto Star or Globe and Mail. I don't understand why we are being so selective here. For example, how can we justify the notability of Brother André Catholic High School yet not this article. Poyani (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people and for schools are different, and the differences are irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is whether Mr. DeVita's history, or coverage of him, meets WP:POLITICIAN, and I don't think they do. PKT(alk) 20:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E, doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Unsuccessful election candidates are not automatically notable; in this case, all the coverage of him seems to be routine coverage relating to the election, which is what makes this a 'one event'-type article in my view. I note that he is up for election again in October, and it might seem a little silly to delete this article now when if he wins then he will definitely be notable; but in that event the article can always be recreated, whereas if he loses he won't be any more notable than he is now. Robofish (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per POLITICIAN, candidates aren't notable. 117Avenue (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2011 (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.