Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Bielat (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 No Consensus to delete. There is no consensus in the discussion below as to whether coverage is sufficient to support an article on this candidate. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Bielat

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. A candidate for office who has no other claims to notability, all sources are in context of election (which he's more than likely to lose, as a Republican in a heavily Democratic district in Massachusetts against a Kennedy). Article was deleted for the same reason in the 2010 election season, and nothing has changed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage received during his 2010 run.
- You mean the coverage that wasn't sufficient to stop the article from being deleted on November 10, 2010, days after the election concluded? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the conclusion of the 2010 race, where he mounted the most significant challenge of Barney Frank's career (which in turn was widely credited with convincing Frank to retire), Bielat announced that he was retiring from politics; therefore there was an expectation that he would not CONTINUE to receive attention from WP:RS, and the article was deleted AFTER THE ELECTION. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noting point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN: although such people 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". Also, if he does indeed lose like you suggest, then I'll most likely vote for deletion as I did in the article's previous AfD. (Disclosure: I'm a significant contributed to the original article) jheiv ^{talk contribs} 17:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:POLITICIAN, he's not notable unless he wins. So why would he be notable until he loses? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to election) unless sources can establish some kind of notability outside the election. Almost every source is from a single month. There's no historical value there. Designate (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to election article. He's not notable outside his candidacy, so for now we should redirect there, and revisit after the election. Arbor8 (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this article because it gives a little background on the person responsible for the "Barney Funk" video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4QbNGnvBR7k While the politician is not notable for himself, the information is useful for someone looking into gonzo political videos. (Obviously I am not a wikipedia regular and don't really understand the criteria for inclusion or (especially) the proper formatting for this page. Feel free to edit or delete my comment. I just wanted to give some insight from outside the bubble. Thank you *very* much for your hard work making wikipedia a great resource for the resto of us. It is appreciated.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.51.23 (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does show a variety of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS, and yes succeeds, WP:GNG. Most political leaders in voting candidacy are informatively suitable to be notable and express independent verification coverage from news and documents.--GoShow (............................) 15:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeepOne of the two most credible House challengers in MA this cycle. Bielat's strong showing against Frank had a major influence on Frank's retirement; Congressional Districts were redrawn, and to avoid harm to other Reps., but Frank's old district, the most gerrymandered in the State, had to go; no way around making it much more competitive. Bielat's arm was twisted to re-enter politics, since had the district been as it is now, he would have likely won in '10. Speculation that he will lose because a candidate with money and name, and nothing else has entered the race, or that MA is only Dem. ignores the demographics of the S Shore, and is WP:CRYSTAL. No doubt that when Bielat leaves politics, as he did in 2011, he drops off the radar, but his influence extends beyond the two races. Also no doubt that he WILL be in the news for at least another month, that is NOT WP:CRYSTAL. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination does not fail CRYSTAL. All of the prognosticators (Cook, Rothenberg, Roll Call, and Sabato's Crystal Ball), all list MA-04 as safe democratic, or don't bother listing it at all. None of what you said about Frank and redistricting is anything more than speculative. Any coverage of Bielat is coverage of the race, hence WP:POLITICIAN. As you said, he dropped off the radar in 2011, and is highly likely to do so again in 2013, with no lasting impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]