Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oz Griebel

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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Oz Griebel

Oz Griebel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Profile of a candidate in a forthcoming election, which the author admits was created with the election in mind. Unelected politicians are not inherently notable. Using Wikipedia to raise the profile of a candidate is WP:SPAM. Tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of being overly promotional but rejected as non-speedyable following a toning down of the content - though the article still has 5 links to ozforgovernor.com and the sole remaining reference is to a candidate profile in a local newspaper. The article started as a copyvio of the subject's campaign facebook page and retains the same structure so there is clearly a WP:COI. Delete - notability not established; article is non-neutral. I42 (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand, and agree, that unelected politicians are not inherently notable. There are, however, many candidates in many races who are known only as business executives and have wikipedia pages based on this notability. Had Oz Griebel not become a candidate for governor, I believe his wikipedia page would still meet the standards for acceptability. I have done my best to reference reliable and impartial sources and use neutral, objective language. I will continue to work at making the page acceptable. Do you have any suggestions as to what additions would make the article more neutral?Jsrgnt (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete – Per the nomination, Oz Griebel does not appear to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Should he hold some public office in the future or become the head of some major entity, then he might become notable, but Mr. Griebel is not at present. Also, because the article’s creator created this article to essentially promote a candidate, this might also be a conflict of interest situation. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This was not created strictly to promote a candidate, but to offer additional resources to those interested in Connecticut's public discourse. I believe that Oz Griebel does meet the notability guidelines. As the former CEO of a bank and a major economic development organization, he is not unlike the CEOs in the Wikipedia List of chief executive officers, all of whom have their own articles.Jsrgnt (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't know this guy from Adam, but a quick Google search suggests he is prominent in his field, was the chairman of a major bank, was involved in government advisory panels and is the chairman of a major regional development organization. He is quoted or referenced as "Oz Griebel" (a fairly unique name) in 436 articles, a select few of which I list here:
  • The Day (Connecticut), June 2005 Chairman of state "Transportation Strategy Board", article devoted to him.
  • Boston Globe, March 2009 President of the MetroHartford Alliance, extensively quoted.
  • Norwich Bulletin, Feb 2010 Editorial about Griebel's candidacy.

Notability is thus easily established. A person who is already notable does not lose notability because they become a political candidate. Non-neutrality is a reason for cleanup, not a reason for deletion. Thparkth (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep on the basis of his pre-existing notability. Even by my admittedly broad standards, he wouldn't be notable as a politician long as he is only running for the Republic nomination. If he does become the Republican candidate for governor, I would consider him notable. the amount of sourcing available for the two major party candidates for a state-wide office will always be sufficient, and we would save a great deal of trouble over the next year if we accepted this now--and for the candidates for the national legislature. (I leave it up to those who know UK politics whether in the UK it should be considered as the 3 major parties). However, we need to be very careful with these articles not to let them be turned into advertisements--his minor civic offices are not significant content whether or not he becomes governor. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject has generated enough coverage to conform to the notability standards. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable per WP:GNG if nothing else. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2010 (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.