Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Sonski

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 no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sonski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails to meet notability standards for biographies. SecretName101 (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and United States of America. SecretName101 (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are enough RS and content here to keep the article. I suspect there will only be more as the campaign progresses as well, but I am satisifeid with what exists currently. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Slugger O'Toole Routine campaign coverage that fails to establish individual notability does not suffice. SecretName101 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for two reasons. (1) While coverage on private websites doesn't establish notability, coverage in National Review certainly does. The National Review column (cited in footnote 11) lists Sonski alongside Ron DeSantis as candidates who have endorsed a Princeton professor's column. It's reasonable for readers of National Review to wonder who Sonski is, and some of them will turn to Wikipedia for an answer. (2) In the 2020 presidential election, the American Solidarity Party was on the ballot in eight states, and an authorized write-in in most of the others, and received notable coverage. That makes their 2024 nominee notable. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Passing mention in an article has NEVER been enough to satisfy notability. So that National Review article is certainly not enough SecretName101 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on coverage here 1, 2, and 3.Upper Deck Guy (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The first two are the very definition of routine coverage, and the third one alone does not establish his notability. None of those sources illustrate notability. SecretName101 (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to 2024 United States presidential election. There are three criteria spelled out under Wikipedia:Notability (people). Peter Sonski does not meet any of the three. The sources provided are run of the mill election coverage that many of the 1,121 candidates running for President receive. Additionally, it is too soon to know if this will matter to the greater historic record. We do not even know if Sonski will get on the ballot of any state yet. Finally, without assuming any bad faith, I am going to leave this essay here: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Third party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election#Nominated candidates. Per SecretName101 and Mpen320, subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, having received only routine campaign coverage to this point. Redirecting to the aforementioned section of the article where he is presently listed as his party's nominee would be a viable alternative to outright deletion. No prejudice against re-creation of the article should Sonski eventually gain enough RS-based significant coverage to pass notability guidelines. Sal2100 (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are a fair number of editors who want to see this article Kept and two different Redirect articles suggested. So, no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Third party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election. Having reviewed the responses to the !keep votes, I think it's clear that an article is TOOSOON at this point, and the subject does not meet N. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick edit: I will say Third party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election § Nominated candidates for the sake of consensus. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 15:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A third party candidate for President of the United States is notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2023 (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.