Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Murray (politician) (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. I'm not seeinga clear consensus either way here. There is a tension between N and POLITICIAN that has yet to be clearly resolved. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Murray (politician)

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

As indicated in the AfD that just closed a few hours ago after Murray lost the election, he is a non-notable army officer, who did not come even close to being elected to Congress. Racepacket (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I closed the previous AfD, with the consensus present there. I agree with Racepacket that this should now be deleted, as Murray does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. However, I would not be averse to this being deleted and recreated as a redirect to Virginia's 8th congressional district election, 2010. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. ukexpat (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Virginia's 8th congressional district election, 2010. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:MILPEOPLE, but I could see him possibly being a valid search term. There is a decent possibility he might try for office again, so keeping the edit history in a redirect might be a good idea later on down the road. bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redir - Local, routine coverage, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Should have just been tossed the first time around, along with many others. Tarc (talk)
Procedural Close Abuse of process. As indicated by the nom, the last AfD only closed a few hours before this one opened. I don't believe that any policies have changed significantly in that time. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC) (See below for rationale for alternate outcome)[reply]
Bold redirect - plausible search term and to keep history in the unlikely chance he eventually runs again and wins. The article creation and subsequent original AfD were premature, as the outcome of the AfD depends on the outcome of the election. I see no reason to procedurally close this one, but perhaps in the future temporarily close AfDs of political candidates until election results are known.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close - Article just had a deletion discussion that closed concluding that the article should be kept. I highly doubt the grace period between AfD nominations is several hours. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 20:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not feel that a procedural close is the correct thing to do here. The original AfD had been (along with some other political AfDs) timed to end on election day. There would have been an argument for the procedural close of those as an abuse of the AfD process, but the consensus on the last AfD was that it should be kept until the results of the election were known - I should have been clearer about that in my closure, sorry. When I closed the last AfD, I did not have the results before me (I did not in fact think that they had been released at that time), so I closed it as a keep. Now that the results are known, I feel that this is a perfectly valid renomination: otherwise I would not have added my recommendation above. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POLITICIAN is not the guideline to be followed, this candidate still meets the GNG requirements as he has had plenty of coverage:

Fairfax Times has an article w/ significant coverage on Murray.
WTOP TV has an article dedicated to Murray's military career.
The Dailykos on Murray
WMAL radio on Murray
The American spectator
American Chronicle's in depth coverage
Business Wire coverage
Alexandria Times has in depth coverage

A number of papers from accross the country found the endorsement of Murray by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste Political Action Committee (CCAGW PAC) notable enough to cover, those include but are not limited to: MSNBC,Rueters,Forbes, Denver Post,SF Chronicle Furthermore, let's look at whether or not people are seeking this article out? In June it had 205 hits, 252 in July, 497 in August, 898 in September, 2916 in October... (I did a random search and all but 1 of the 10 articles I looked at were hit in 2-300 range.) Obviously, people see him as notable enough to seek him out here.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources relate to his political campaign. His military career was not notable outside his politican campaign. Racepacket (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GNG is independent of WP:POLITICIAN; it is not superseded by it. If his military career received significant coverage even within the campaign, then he passes WP:GNG and the article should be kept. Whether that coverage was trivial and incidental to the news reporting during an election year is what we should be considering here. Ray^Talk 15:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the question is, Is the coverage trivial in nature, "Murray went on a campaign stop" that's trivial in nature. Or is it, "Here are the issues Murray is campaigning on", "here is the bio of the candidate", does the person get significant coverage? We can't pick and choose what constitutes GNG based upon an interpretation of POLITICIAN. GNG supercedes POLITICIAN, not the other way around.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Balloonman in this particular case, but we clearly need better guidelines following a thorough discussion. At most, this should be a merge and redirect, not under any circumstances a delete. Flatterworld (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is non-notable per MILHIST guidelines WP:MILMOS/N as well as the other guidelines cited above. The only coverage appears to be recent election related coverage (which he lost) and as such this would seem to indicate only passing interest per WP:NOTNEWS. Anotherclown (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I may be a little biased, as I am the creator of the article, but Patrick Murray is unlikely to be gone completely from Northern Virginia politics, and he has received national attention, including an interview on Fox News and several other articles and interviews with national news affiliates. So I think a keep would be best here. ~BLM (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close – Article just had a AfD which resulted in keep; it should not be AfD'd again so soon after that. -LtNOWIS (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up a couple of times now and even the bloke who closed the last AfD has now voted to delete... can you please provide the reference for this policy? Anotherclown (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody besides the nominator had recommmended deletion, it would qualify for a speedy keep under WP:SK Section 2.3. Following the spirit of that guideline says that renominating an article within hours of its last AfD closure without any new information, policy change, or significantly different delete arguments is disruptive. If the decision was that he was notable before the election, and notability is not temporary, then there is no policy based cause to delete now. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about policy, but a "keep" decision is just that, a decision by the community to keep the article. It's not "we can't agree on what to do;" that would be "no consensus." Therefore, it's bad form to immediately re-nominate an article directly after there's been consensus to keep it. If you can re-nominate right after a keep decision, than the keep decision is essentially meaningless. I would not be opposed to waiting awhile and then re-nominating, like they did for Murray's predecessor in the district, Mark Ellmore. -LtNOWIS (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet a few of the 'keep' votes during the last AfD seemed to be only temporary... a few even said 'keep, temporarily' or 'keep during the election' or words to that effect. Perhaps the previous AfD came to the wrong conclusion? Anotherclown (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where there is any policy to allow for those kind of comments in an AfD. Accordingly, the admin who closed made the decision he could - keep. If that decision was incorrect, then this belongs at DRV, not in a second AfD ~~three~~ six hours after the original close. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I should note that I just removed two "references" from the article, one sourced to a blog and the other to a radio station repeating something from examiner.com (a "reader-written" non-reliable source), and both of which were definite BLP violations attacking Murray's opponent). I am of course assuming good faith on the part of Jim Miller. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing as no admin has closed this nomination yet for being too soon after the intial nomination and decisive keep, I must note that absent a procedural close I believe that the article should be kept. The prior AfD was closed as Keep without noted exception or explanation, and any after the fact explanations should not be relevant to the re-openeing of the discussion. There is no policy-based allowance for a "Provisional Keep" or a "Temporary Keep." The subject of the article meets WP:GNG and WP:V through international coverage in The Irish Times and The Telegraph, as well as national coverage in the National Review. While my opinion is that all major party candidates for federal office are notable, this particular campaign attracted far wider than normal coverage and clearly meets our inclusion criteria. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 23:12, 11 November 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.