Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Esk

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Esk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Has not been elected to any office and does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Some outrageous commentary by Esk gained him some attention a few days ago, but since all the independent coverage is based on those statements we are dealing with a WP:ONEEVENT and not anything sufficient for a full biography. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 11:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 11:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable. Maybe if he wins, there could be justification of keeping. Just being in the news recently does not mean you are notable. Cowlibob (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, due to amount of press coverage. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Article subject covered in multiple reliable sources. (I am the creator of this article.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The recent coverage of his controversial comments just makes him a WP:BLP1E at this point, and not a topic that actually warrants permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia as of yet. If he wins election to office in November — or if this story somehow sustains itself into Christine O'Donnell territory (which it hasn't as of yet) — then he'll qualify for an article, but as things currently stand he does not. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP1E states that it should only be applied to "low-profile individuals", linking to Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, which states in part that a high-profile individual is one that "...has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee." Therefore, it's arguable whether BLP1E applies to this individual; it depends on whether the subject's activities can be considered "attention-seeking". In any event, his primary election is tomorrow; if he wins, the article may change substantially. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he wins the primary, he still doesn't necessarily qualify for a Wikipedia article on that basis — per WP:POLITICIAN, in most cases a person has to win election to office, not just run for it, to qualify, and this single incident comprises a brief burst of coverage that hasn't been sustained over a long enough period to make him the exception to the rule. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. --Shabidoo | Talk 05:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat. A clear case WP:BLP1E and this guy just had his 15 minutes of fame.- Gilliam (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, he got resoundly beaten in the primary so getting elected in November is more or less impossible at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a one-event that its very coverage seems to be designed for political gain. The guy recieved 5% of the vote in a primary election for the State House of Representatives. He does not pass politician, and this is a passing event that is not worth permanent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BLP1E, despite how icky his comments are :-/ SarahStierch (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2014 (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.