Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Vidak

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 California, 2010#District 20 . Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Vidak

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

I think this should probably be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Vidak. I messed up somehow and made the reason for AfD the title.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per this thread, AFD page now moved to correct location. January ^(talk) 21:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Created in good faith as he seemed possible to win, but as he didn't I don't know that he's notable. Some failed candidates are, because they were in state government at a high level or what have you, but it sounded like he wasn't. I'm not a 100% sure he should be deleted though as there could be notable things about him I missed when I created this.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, we all make mistakes but if you want to delete this article and are the one who created it, just tag the article with a speedy delete tag and explain that you are requesting removal as the article's creator. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm leaning that way, but I thought we might due a discussion in case someone knows a reason he'd still be notable. I've never even been to California, although my Dad was born there, so I thought maybe there could be a reason I didn't know. Besides I already started the process, but I'll remember this for next time.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2010#District 20 per WP:POLITICIAN. I don't think the redirect recommendation of that guideline truly has consensus support, however, I think it is the wise thing to do for major party candidates in House or Senate elections where the candidates name is a plausible search term. Location (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I favor inclusion because I think (1) running for Congress and getting over 49% of the vote is notable; (2) he has announced plans to run again in 2012, and regardless of the results of that race, there needs to be one unified article; where would you redirect to if he loses in 2012 as well? WP:POLITICIAN says that someone can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." There was considerable coverage of Vidak in the Fresno and Bakersfield media during the 2010 campaign. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you don't keep an article on Wikipedia for an individual deemed non-notable just because he claims he'll run again for office in two years. And if he loses in 2012 he is a two-time political loser and just as non-notable. Why worry about where to redirect his name in two years? Does that make sense? Redirecting is not mandatory anyway. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was a ton of local (Fresno) coverage and national coverage because it was one of the last of the House races to be decided--meets "significant coverage" requirement.--Corbridge (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^talk 21:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular ^talk 21:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2010#District 20 (as per User:Location): Would only be notable given his curriculum vitae had he won the election. [A] "ton of local (Fresno) coverage" doesn't cut it, either. Article really should not have been created until the election was decided. Had he won, ... but he didn't. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually create articles on prospective candidates, I'm not sure I ever did before this year, but he seemed to have good odds of winning and the article on Tom Marino worked out. In retrospect though maybe I should have held off, particularly considering his pre-election CV is arguably less noteworthy than Marino's.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is only known for one thing: this one election. It was a cliffhanger but the result was that he lost, and he may never be heard of again. It's true that his name and his political signs were ubiquitous in the Valley before the election, but that doesn't make a person notable according to either WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the election article, essentially per WP:BLP1E, because the election is all that he's notable for (if at all). Sandstein 08:25, 3 December 2010 (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.