Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Bott

:{{la|Kevin Bott}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_Bott Stats])

:({{Find sources|Kevin Bott}})

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Unsuccessful mayoral candidate who has received little or no coverage outside of routine campaign press, per Google News search. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate page. Ddcm8991 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete although he seems like an awesome guy and a great leader in his community. Green Party candidate for mayor of Syracuse doesn't cut it unless someone uncovers very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• KEEP How can Bott be an "Unsuccessful mayoral candidate" when the election has not even happened yet? It sounds like editors are not actually reading the information on the page. There is now no Republican running in this mayoral race against the incumbent Democrat who has record low numbers already in polls -- that will be a first in this city, that I'm aware of, that a Democrat Mayor will have a Green as her primary contender. This situtaion will automatically put Bott in the spotlight. At the least if the page is removed it should be done after the race is over in November. His race has been covered by the local newspaper numerous times, the public radio station, the local tv station, etc., check the references. It would seem . . . unusual that wikipedia would remove the page of the one contender to an incumbent mayor in the middle of the campaign.GreenIn2010 (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

:*You seem to have your logic back-to-front in your first sentence. If the election hasn't happened yet then Bott can't possibly have been a successful candidate, therefore, unless and until he is elected, he is an unsuccessful candidate. And Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a resource for voters in a forthcoming election, so there is no requirement for fairness or reason to imply that there is some sort of conspiracy against this candidate or his party. This situation is far from unusual, with articles about such candidates of any or no party being deleted frequently. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

::*I'm not sure which news coverage in a political campaign is determined to be "routine campaign press" Additionally, not every political race is posted on wikipedia, only the ones that someone decides is worth creating. In this case a unique race has developed between a highly charismatic candidate from a third party and an incumbent Democrat who has very low ratings amongst her own constituents. The campaign is being covered in the local news increasingly because the race is shaping up to be unique in the City's recent history. Races where only one of the major parties has a candidate running are typically newsworthy in part because of the issues the alternative party candidate brings to the race, normally not examined, as well as unexpected events which occur, such as arrests and other situations where the alternative candidates seek a means to gain the press coverage routinely afforded to major parties. GreenIn2010 (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Looks like the candidate is getting a surprising amount coverage from the area already. If the page needs to be deleted, it can wait until the race is over. Because if the race turns interesting it would have been better to just leave it. I say let this unfold rather than rush to delete when the situation is in progress.PhotoactivistSV (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

NOMINTATION WITHDRAWN: While acknowledging my blunder is using the word "unsuccessful" about a candidate in an election that has not yet taken place, I'm not still not convinced that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. However, given the increasing amount of press coverage he is receiving, and the clear potential for more to come given the unique circumstances of the race (per comments of GreenIn2010), I have to decided to withdraw the nomination for the time being. Will re-assess and decide whether or not to re-nominate after the election is over.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Much appreciated. GreenIn2010 (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• BTW, when does the AfD tag leave the page now that the nomination has been withdrawn? GreenIn2010 (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Please allow the discussion to run its course. There are arugments in support of deletion. If there is coverage of the election, then perhaps an article on the election would be warranted. Also, some of the keep arguments here seem to be coming from involved or at least interested parties. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2013 (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.