Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew C. Pritt

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew C. Pritt

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Failed political candidate, does not meet GNG or WP:NPOL. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am citing everything and writing it as unbiased as possible. To say I am a "failed" politcian ignores the thrust of this article is I am the first openly-gay individual to run for statewide office. That in itself is meritable. I also cite moments of not so positive outlook towards myself and cite those sources. I am providing plenty of verifiable and legitimate sources. This is supposed to be a cite for information. Okay, yes, I am writing it about me, but if I used verifiable sources and write truth, what's your problem with this? The lack of information I say is the problem. I'm not stuck on myself but I am trying to treat this like any other article in a balanced form. Acpritt (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While Eostrix states Failed Political Candidate does not meet GNG or WP:NPOL, I also ask you to note it states quite clearly ".... although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." In this case, it is noted and verified by national and state publications I am the FIRST LGBT Candidate to run for statewide office in Arkansas. Acpritt (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Per nom, also improperly undeclared WP:AUTO, not compliant with WP:COI. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point in draftifying here, as the subject does not meet notability guidelines and is not a viable main space article.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is more coverage of the alleged theft here, and the subject has a number of aliases which could help to establish notability (see here). SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, SailingInABathTub you argue on one point it doesn't follow guidelines. However, you cite an older news article and also cite a personal blog that makes unsubstantiated allegations. Respectfully, I have held office. I also, believe I have met the guidelines stated. There are other non-elected politicians with their own pages on here, such as John Burkhalter. He served on an appointed commission such as myself. Are we giving more weight to him because he has money? Also, my references are valid news sources. You both have cited personal blogs. There's not as much reliability in those versus established national and state news organizations. Acpritt (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeing with the nomination that the article does not currently meet the requirements for a mainspace article - but I believe that it has potential. Moving the article to a draft will allow you improve the article and follow the WP:AFC process. The alternative is likely to be that the article is deleted per WP:BLPDELETE. SailingInABathTub (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SailingInABathTub I am open to any and all critiques. Would you mind maybe taking it over and/or working with me to strengthen it so it may attain that point? I really want to work to make the information better and it might be better to have someone else do it. So yes, I am open to your suggestions. Acpritt (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Start by reading WP:YOURSELF and WP:BLP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, but do not delete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did not even win the primary in the most signifcant race he ran in, not anywhere close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an WP:NPOL fail that has not yet established WP:GNG outside of the campaign and also per WP:TNT given the the promotional CV-nature of the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I am disappointed in some who are saying DELETE. You say I haven't been established as a politician, yet I haven't finished adding material. But at least SailingInABathTub and Beyond My Ken are willing to offer options and willing to work. If either of you will work with me to strengthen this and add the offices I have been elected to, I would appreciate it. I would note, there are politicians who are not elected to office who are listed on Wikipedia. John Burkhalter is a perfect example. He ran for Lt. Governor in 2010 but never won an election. There's others, so if you say it hasn't met the criteria, with all due respect, you need to re-read as I have what is required. Acpritt (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with the article, really, the problem is that at this point in your life, you simply don't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. You're close, in my opinion, but you're not there. That's why I !voted that the article should be sent to draftspace instead of being deleted. I think that you have the probability of being Wiki-notable at some point, and the article should be kept around and updated until that point is reached.

Also, may I say that it's not considered to be good form for the author of an article -- who in this case is also the subject of the article -- to answer every comment by other editors at AfD. We call it WP:BLUDGEONing. I don't think you're there yet, but you will be if you continue to respond as you are now. This is a community process, you should let the discussion run to a decision -- it's highly unlikely that anything you say at this point is going to change the course of events.

My advice to you is copy the article and keep it off-Wiki, in case it doesn't get draftified, and bring it back once the situation has substantially changed, that is, when you have more experience under your belt, and more media coverage. Good luck! Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please read WP:Other stuff exists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete autobio which fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG and has some potential WP:BLP concerns to boot (even though it's an autobio.) SportingFlyer T·C 19:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since he's been mentioned multiple times, John Burkhalter's article is also up for deletion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL is clearly not met, I don't see sourcing that suggests GNG is met either. This is also an autobiography and there are promotional and sourcing issues as a result. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 4 March 2021 (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.