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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Buttigieg (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)

Political candidature doesn't confer wikipedia notability. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if he wins an election, article may be appropriate, but not until then. Yworo (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: don't delete - Pete Buttigieg has achieved sufficient notability so as to be included on wikipedia as per the Wiki notable person policy. He is one of the two candidates appearing on the ballot of a statewide office of Indiana, an office for which more than 1.5 million people cast their vote four years ago. There is a great deal of media coverage around the state, but seeing as it is statewide, a great deal of it is on smaller, local newspaper websites that do not allow for citation of their pages after a certain amount of them (when they archive them). All the articles can be found on the candidate's website, but I assumed wikipedia would frown on that repeated citation of the campaign website (which you'll note is only referenced ONCE, not multiple times, and that is to simply observe the candidate's business background). I'd also note that the party website is only cited once, simply to establish that he is in fact the Democratic candidate, which is hardly illegitimate. I'd reference you to another State Treasurer candidate with a wiki page that is not remotely controversial, Andrei Cherny, and would observe that his age is similar (even if it's not mentioned there), and his methods of citation are quite similar as well. Notwithstanding the fact that this candidate is a Rhodes Scholar, which is "a well-known and significant award or honor", there is plenty of news coverage to meet wikipedia's exacting standards, and examining the page reveals no significant bias in its writing. (I apologize for some of these points not being raised by the above two users, I wanted to address the ones raised on the article's talk page as well, in case those were being considered). Hanumang06 (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• - — Hanumang06 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment There are about 32 Rhodes Scholarships per annum for the United States. A page's existence is not reason for another page to exist. I went to look at Andrei Cherny expecting to tag for deletion, but it seems he's got a few more qualifications. This one looks like just another candidate to me. Peridon (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep limited coverage previous to run for office (Harvard, publication in NYT) likely which wouldn't meet WP:N, but current run has plenty of coverage so WP:N is met and I don't quite see a WP:BLP1E here. Hobit (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This candidate has no real experience or notoriety outside of being in a statewide campaign. The media coverage (as stated above) has been in small media sources and has not been widespread throughout the state. This is the candidates second attempt to create a wikipedia campaign page. Redwngr333 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Indiana State Treasurer, unless there's a page created for the race (doubtful, but who knows around here), per WP:POLITICIAN. I can only see mentions of his involvement in the race in two articles in two local media sources, hardly "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." If he gets more coverage, the redirect can be undone and the article expanded as appropriate. — e. ripley\^talk 02:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• - Comment - from the picture upload detail."This is a biography created by his campaign staff using a picture from his campaign" . Although this is not wiki illegal as such it is reflective of the reasoning behind its creation and good reason to investigate what coverage there actually is in these citations specifically about this person and not the election race as a whole. Off2riorob (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment First please note that this was a second attempt not due to some stubborn flouting of rules, but simply because I'm a wiki neophyte and didn't include proper news references in my abortive initial foray. To address some of the points above: * the page actually includes 10 different news articles, which come from every reasonably sized media market in the state, geographically scattered throughout (South Bend, Ft. Wayne, Indianapolis, Chesterton, Terre Haute, Lafayette, Louisville/Jeffersonville, and Evansville), so it is actually "widespread throughout the state", and definitely more than two articles in two local media sources: a quick Google News search would net you 30 similar articles, these are simply noted to show the distribution. Like I said, I'm no wiki expert, but I genuinely don't understand what the notability difference is between this article and the one for Andrei Cherny, who has a similar background, age, # of references (fewer, actually) and office he is seeking, (he is Arizona's Democratic nominee for Treasurer). I appreciate the time you've all put into something like this not necessarily fascinating to you, any feedback would be great! Hanumang06 (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can only vote comment once, please strike one, so far you have, bolded..don't delete and now keep. Please ask me to help iy you don't know how to strike, Or just delete the don't delete..this will sort it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've refactored Hanumang06's !votes, changing the first from "Don't Delete" to "Keep: don't delete" and the second from "Keep" to "Comment". TFOWR 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I agree with the edit, I didn't realize how to do appropriate formatting, sorry about the confusion! Hanumang06 (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN as a candidate for office not otherwise notable per WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no real good reason for keeping has been advanced. The elected position of State Treasurer is one that has no equivalent over here, and I'm not sure of its status. However, there is an article on the Indiana one, so I will assume it is notable. Candidates with no other notability do not acquire notability from a position they do not yet occupy - except at Presidential level, of course. Peridon (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think, from my understanding of WP notability rules, that it's not his standing as a candidate that's relevant (which is not my contention here, though the office itself is certainly not some local town council seat), but whether he has acquired notability, as judged by such things as news coverage from independent sources. That burden has been met, again, both for this candidate and Andrei Cherny for Arizona's equivalent position. Hanumang06 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would say Andrei Cherny doesn't meet the guidelines either, we have a thing here that political candidature does not assert wikipedia notabity, and I have seen the reasons for that and support that position, this is over ridden if the election in itself becomes especially notable.. so if you look at it like that, what is my man notable for apart from that? His Rhodes scholarship and employment history doesn't quite cut it, imo.Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Tag it if you don't think it fits. But you can't use it as a reason for this one. Peridon (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think his resume is more extensive than the simplified "Rhodes and employment history", even aside from that, I think the references are numerous enough and geographically varied enough to indicate notable interest in the candidate and the election throughout a state that is of reasonable geographic size. And since Cherny has been around on the site for quite some time without any challenge, it seems like there's at least some reasonable number of users who consider it a relevant entry. Let me know what you think! Hanumang06 (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That guy Chenny appears to have written a book but I don't know about the sales or the notability, we have WP:AUTHOR for writers. General guidelines are WP:GNG .. WP:BIO..Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think things are getting off topic here. I'm happy enough with Cherny'a article, but if anyone wants to make a real discussion of it, there's a talk page there or if you feel strongly enough, take it to AfD. Peridon (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete for now. If he wins the statewide office for which he is running, he will be automatically notable. But for now he doesn't have the outside citations necessary to make him notable. I am saying "weak delete" because he gets a few hits besides the usual "so and so is running" stories. He has managed to get some op-eds printed in the New York Times, and there is some coverage of the election from outside Indiana. --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to user:Hanumang06: It is clear you are here only to promote this person's candidacy, but please be less blatant about it. The redirect page Pete for Indiana, which you created to redirect to this page, is way over the line and I have requested its speedy deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough, i actually agree with your point, I'm gonna delete that myself Hanumang06 (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC) --- someone beat me to it, but yeah, you were definitely right on that point, apologies Hanumang06 (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notority doesn't happen becuase some educated but unexperienced individual runs for public office the very first time.
• Delete Per Ukexpat and other, fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. Novaseminary (talk) 03:12, 27 July 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.