Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Babbitt (second 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 of the debate was delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Babbitt

Failed congressional candidate from 2004, not running again, no longer rates an article. Delete KleenupKrew 11:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as a major party nominee for the US House of Reps and mayor of a moderately important US city. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Youngamerican; I can understand deleting truly minor candidates, but as a fairly experienced politician, this one doesn't fall below reasonable criteria for political-related deletions. Captainktainer * Talk 17:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just being a candidate does not make one notable. A House candidate may even suffer notability issues outside his home district within the state. --DarkAudit 18:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to point out, the claim isn't that he's "just" a candidate. He's also been Mayor of a decently important city, held local office before then, was the focus of a high profile campaign, and is the brother of a very high-profile government figure.Captainktainer * Talk 20:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Two brothers of Richard Nixon have articles in AfD, so relation != notability. Merely holding local office in a county commision is not notable in itself. Mayor of Flagstaff is not as notable as mayor of say, Phoenix. And even there, I'd say that wouldn't be all that notable on it's own, either. --DarkAudit 21:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. On their own, I'd say you'd be right. Each individual datum falls under the notability threshold. However, it's the combination that makes the man in this case. Kind of like putting together a house- each individual brick isn't important unless they've got special writing or are assembled by nanotech or something. It's what the bricks build, and in this case we have a candidate involved in a highly contentious campaign against a high-profile member of the Republican party, a candidate who had the full backing of his party and whose loss is sometimes attributed to his brother's name.Captainktainer * Talk 21:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Notability questions I would ask: What legislation has he contributed to? What projects or public works have been proposed, started or completed during his tenure? What real progress has he made as mayor of Flagstaff? If the article is expanded to answer these and other similar questions, then perhaps it should stay. But being in Arizona myself, I doubt they will be. While it is possible for people to be famous solely for their affiliation with truly notable people (i.e. Zsa Zsa Gabor, Paris Hilton, etc), I would still argue that the average Wikipedian has neither heard of nor cares about this individual. --NMChico24 23:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, candidates are not notable by dint of running for office alone. Famous relatives do not confer notability. SM247^{My Talk} 01:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think anyone even knew who he was during the election he was in. Flagstaff is not a big enough city for a former mayor to have an article, sorry. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:44, 5 July 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.