Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wynne LeGrow

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 redirect to

United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 4. postdlf (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Wynne LeGrow

)

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

Fails

WP:POLITICIAN. Party nominees for office are not inherently notable. While there is quite a bit of text on this article, much of it is sourced to his own campaign website. Little coverage independent of the subject exists. Further, few articles link here, confirming lack of importance. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 4. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 4. A redirect is an appropriate outcome for candidates for a national office. Any relevant information about the candidate can be added to the page about the election. --Enos733 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Striking my "Keep" !vote and hat'ing this discussion as it is not helpful. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep:Muboshgu is incorrect, I am seeing alot of good references from the NY Times, to local Virginia papers to a TV station or two, not just the campaign website. If the article didn't have the sources, I would say it failed GNG, but since it has 17 sources that fall under
WP:RS, I think it passes GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment All the sources I see are exactly the sort of run-of-the-mill coverage generated by any halfway competent political campaign. I see no significant coverage of this person before or after the campaign. Accordingly, the article about the campaign is the best place to discuss this person, according to longstanding consensus as reflected in
WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: References are references regardless of when they were made. If these were blog references or some other non-notable website, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But they are to local newspapers, a TV station, the New York Times. So, regardless if they were made during, before, or after the election, the article has references (17 of them) and passes GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you say the New York Times, are you referring to this source? Because that doesn't contribute any "significant coverage" towards GNG. None of the other 17 references provide "significant coverage" either, unless you count the
WP:PRIMARY sources, which you shouldn't, since secondary sources are required. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
We need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The New York Times mention is insignificant and routine. Citations to his website are not independent. Several others are passing mentions. The coverage is entirely run-of-the-mill, routine, trivial coverage of a badly failed election campaign. Coverage at the article about this election is the best place to discuss this person in context. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You all realize you just said, in a round-about way, that the Times isn't a "reliable, independent source", right? Regardless, there are references from the
Richmond Times Dispatch, The Progress-Index (the local paper for Petersburg, Virginia), The Chesterfield Observer (another local paper), The Tidewater News (I do believe that's a weekly), another source from The Progress-Index, and one from WVEC, the ABC affiliate in Norfolk, Virginia. Now, those are reliable sources also and are independent of the candidate (as is the Times). Would you like to shoot those down as well? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
That is not at all what Cullen and I are saying. We're saying that the coverage of LeGrow in the NY Times is trivial and not in sufficient depth to establish notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read it the wrong way, it seems like that is what you were saying. What I was saying was, you add the Times to all the local coverage, you get some good references which establish notability. Just because the papers in Richmond, Chesterfield and Petersburg aren't to the size of the Times, they aren't insignificant. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, every politician who runs in any election will generate some press coverage, by virtue of the fact that local media have a moral and ethical and legal obligation to provide coverage of the election. However, the mere fact of being a candidate in an election is not sufficient to make a person
WP:POLITICIAN is counterbalanced by his meeting a different notability guideline. Since LeGrow hasn't held office, his chances of being notable enough for inclusion here rest entirely on criterion B — so the dating of the sources is relevant to whether he passes that or not, because it speaks directly to whether he was ever notable enough as a nephrologist to get past his failure to be notable as a politician. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 4. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2013 (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.