Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavi Begtrup

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gavi Begtrup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Candidate for mayoral primary, does not met WP:NPOL. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but he is also an inventor and published scientist, as well as an author for Inc. is that enough to keep this page up? What can I do to make this not considered for deletion? User:Berkeleyjess (author)

I added more information about Gavi Begtrup as an author and inventor to address the comments by User:Eostrix in mark for deletion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkeleyjess (talk • contribs) 08:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With an h-index of 10, he is not notable as an academic either.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eostrix , I'm not as experienced at Wikipedia as you are, so I'd love some suggestions of how I can improve this page to address your concerns. My perspective was that between his scientific contributions, writings, companies that he started, inventions, and political contributions he merits a page as a public figure. User:Berkeleyjess

As per the general notability criterion "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" -- I did find at least four articles that meet this criterion, pointing towards notability. https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2021/01/27/gavi-begtrup-scientist-and-start-up-founder-running-mayor/4258583001/, https://www.fox19.com/2021/01/29/scientist-entrepreneur-launches-campaign-cincinnati-mayor/, https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/01/27/gavi-begtrup-running-for-mayor.html, https://www.uptowninnovationcorridor.com/newsletters/2019/3/22/the-corridor-conversation-gavi-begtrup-1 Chymicus (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is not automatically passed just because you show that some sources exist. We don't just evaluate the footnotes for their number, but also test them for depth, their geographic and temporal ranges, and whether the context of what the person is getting covered for passes our notability criteria or not. The thing is, every mayoral candidate in every city always gets a cluster of campaign coverage in their local media, because covering local politics is local media's job — but what every mayoral candidate in every city doesn't always have is a reason why the world will still need an encyclopedia article about them to exist ten years from now. So no, the existence of a handful of campaign coverage in the local media is not enough to hand a person a free pass over WP:GNG that would exempt them from actually having to pass WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. People, regardless of their field, are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs: simply being an inventor is not an automatic exemption from having to establish the notability of his work as an inventor, being a "published scientist" is not an automatic exemption from having to establish the notability of his work as a published scientist, and on and so forth. No matter what field a person is involved in, the notability test is not automatically passed just because it's possible to verify that he exists — it requires independent reliable sources to establish the enduring significance of his work by analyzing it. But his scientific and entrepreneurial work is referenced entirely to primary sources (staff profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, etc.) that are not support for notability, with no indication whatsoever of any external analysis of his importance — and while there's clearly a small smattering of campaign coverage in the context of his campaign for mayor, the existence of a bit of local campaign coverage is not an exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL for the reasons I explained above: if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took to hand an unelected candidate for office a WP:GNG pass that exempted them from NPOL, then every candidate for office would always be exempted from NPOL, and NPOL itself would be meaningless since nobody would ever actually have to be measured against it at all anymore. So no, nothing here is enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete candidates for public office are almost never notable. I would say they are never notable if only in the primary except if they are a candidate in the US presidential primaries. There may be equivalent possible notability squeek by in other countries, but in the US the only people who are even notable just as primary candidates are US presidential primary candidates who get lots of attention. Even then, they almost always would already be notable for some other reason. I think even the fake Mexican had served in a public office earlier that made him notable, and Trump although never in public office was notable 15 or more years before Wikipedia came into existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This person is not notable. --CanadianToast (talk) 20:15, 10 February 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.