Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Scaringi

: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 delete. The arguments for deletion are more policy based (i.e. the need for sources) than the arguments for retention can bring forward. –MuZemike 20:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

=[[Marc Scaringi]]=

:{{la|Marc Scaringi}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Marc Scaringi}})

Candidate in a future party primary; no properly sourced indication of actual notability per WP:POLITICIAN (at which the bare minimum is actually holding an elected office.) Previously prodded, but the creator deprodded with the rationale that the article was "contextually similar to Tom Corbett" — if you have any explanation as to how being a candidate in a party primary for an election that's still almost two years away is even remotely "contextually similar" to being the actual sitting incumbent governor, however, I'm all ears. Delete; he can come back if he wins the nomination and/or the Senate election, but until that happens he's not entitled to use Wikipedia to promote his candidacy in the meantime. Republican or Democrat, Tea Party or not, this is not what Wikipedia is for. Bearcat (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

:Weak Keep As a candidate who has never held public office, he may barely squeak by WP:POLITICIAN requirements based on independent coverage such as http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45560.html, http://earlyreturns.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1972:casey-gets-an-opponent&catid=53:post-gazette-staff&Itemid=34 and http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com/phillynow/2010/11/29/casey%e2%80%99s-first-challenger-steps-up/ Article needs some work to become NPOV if kept though. Jonathanwallace (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Obvious delete - "As a candidate who has never held public office"... is a horrible way to try to apply the WP:POLITICIAN guideline, which by the way, doesn't accept most congressional candidates that don't endup congresspersons. Shadowjams (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't yet meet politician notability standards at this time - this could obviously change, but for now, no. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Article should definitely be rewritten (sounds promotional) but I think he passes WP:POLITICIAN. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

::How does he pass WP:POLITICIAN, when the article barely even cites a single source that he didn't write himself? Bearcat (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete until such time as he a) becomes notable in a non-political context or b) gets elected. DS (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2011 (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.