Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Metti (2nd nomination)

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Metti

Michael Metti (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Wikipedia has clear and established consensus about candidates for election. Sometimes these rules are flouted (first AfD), but in this case, the candidate not only lost (surprise) garnering less than 2% of the vote, he also fails WP:BIO Eusebeus 00:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Vote the article out of office. --humblefool® 00:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable candidate, 124000 votes in the last election. Where exactly are our established guidelines for election candidates? --- RockMFR 01:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Here: Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. -- Fan-1967 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Great to see that a poorly-written proposed guideline is considered "established consensus". --- RockMFR 02:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Merely getting on the ballot, and getting stomped, is not, in itself, notable. Fan-1967 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - losing four statewide elections, the last with less than one vote in 70, doesn't establish sufficient notability. Now if it were four Presidential elections, that might be a different story. There was nothing else in the article even hinting at meeting WP:BIO. B.Wind 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If four isn't enough - how many statewide elections must one lose to be notable??  ;) Garrie 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Candidate for US Federal Office. That's notable enough for me, WP:BIO should be changed. How do we change that, btw? Yankee Rajput 02:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Changing a guideline is not a light process; you should at the very least discuss it on the talk page. Doing it to keep one article is not a good idea, as it probably violates WP:POINT. Specifically you talk about US Federal office; does that mean any other country's federal office candidates are not exempt? ColourBurst 04:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ignore WP:BIO for the time then. Consider only the Primary Notability Criteria: Is the subject referenced in multiple, independant, third-party sources? Consider this google search, which turns up not a single website unassociated with his own campaigns. Lack of independant references means it must go. --Jayron32 05:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per notability policies above.Obina 21:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per RockMFR and Yakee Rajput Kc4 00:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per notability, verifiability.Garrie 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No notability independent of lapsed candidacy. I favor a broad definition of candidate notability while elections are underway, and would have voted to keep in the first AfD. But now that the election has passed, nothing apparently makes this individual notable. 124K is a drop in the bucket as far as a statewide California election goes, and 2% returns is not history-making for a third-party candidate. Merge any pertinent details to California United States Senate election, 2006 and delete this article. No prejudice against recreation, should Metti run for office again. -- Shunpiker 01:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• I really wanted to keep this, as I hate the idea of Wikipedia:Candidates and elections ever becoming policy, but in this case the 1.6% and the lack of any other notability argues for deletion. Vizjim 11:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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.