Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Brown (California)

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 No consensus to delete; whether or not to merge can be worked out on the article talkpage. Stifle (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Brown (California)

Failed and current candidate for political office -- not notable on that basis alone. No other basis for notability offered. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. See also WP:BLP1E. RayAYang (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. Charley Brown meets the criteria of being a "local political figure who has received significant press coverage". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extrataylor (talk • contribs) Aug 23, 2008

Merge/Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2008. Notability is not inherited from candidacy. The campaign is notable, not the person. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Montco (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's interesting that you've nominated Democratic candidate Charlie Brown, but you haven't nominated his Republican challenger, Tom McClintock. Neither of these two has been elected to Congress; the incumbent, John Doolittle isn't running for re-election. Oh yeah, I forgot, one of them is a "failed" candidate. Sorry, but that kind of double standard and the proximity of the election (which I predict one of these two non-notable guys might win) makes this kind of nomination suspect. Mandsford (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McClintock is a member of the California State Senate and has been for over 20 years. Members of legislatures are generally considered to be notable. He would qualify if he had lost the Congressional primary. Mr. Brown is has nothing outside of his candidacy.Montco (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would caution Mandsford to assume good faith and to address the merits of the discussion. My interest in electoral politics in California is basically nonexistent; this nomination occurred because of discussion at another AfD, when this article was being mentioned as being another case of failing WP:POLITICIAN (the usual WP:WAX argument), specifically, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Leibham. A brief glance of my editing history would have revealed that I nominated Jim Ogonowski, a candidate from the opposite party in a state at the opposite side of the country, at the same time. Not everything in this season is about partisan politics. RayAYang (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're doing this because someone else happened to mention the article? Did you ever wonder why they became so interested in having this nominated now, rather than later? Or why they didn't nominate it themselves? Or why they aren't defending this nomination that they wanted someone else to make? I'll assume that you made the nomination in good faith, but only because you concede that you have no interest in electoral politics. Mandsford (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep needs to include more notable WP:RS such as Time and U.S. News.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are purely in the context of the election. To quote WP:BLP1E, "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." (emphasis mine) RayAYang (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2008 (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.