Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott M. Sipprelle (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott M. Sipprelle

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Scott M. Sipprelle (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)

This is an article for a person who is a candidate for office but otherwise lacks notability. WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3 addresses this point specifically, that just being a nominee does not automatically confer notability. This article also fails the general notability guidelines, as the coverage is either a) name-drops within an article about their more well-known, notable opponent b) simple voting/registry directory of who is running for this seat, or c) on the local level only, with no national interest. Per the further explanation at WP:POLITICIAN on what to do with failures, a merger to the appropriate district page is a viable option to deletion. Tarc (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep IMO, Bad faith nom. Tarc has been involved in an ongoing dispute with another editor who started an ANI debate related to politicians who are running for office and the election is a week away. That editor left Tarc a snarky comment notifying Tarc of the ANI discussion. Tarc response is to open this AFD with a comment at ANI saying, so off we go with a few trial balloons. In 8 days we will have a better understanding as to whether or not these candidates win or lose and thus deserve an article or not. Anybody who casts an !vote now, which is supposed to give guidance to a closing administrator, is doing so via a crystal ball. It doesn't matter if they meet Politician today, what matters is will they when this is closed? Thus, in light of the ANI discussion, I consider this (and all other nominations made by Tarc on the subject to be POINTY.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about less caterwauling and more commentary on the actual substance here? Regardless of the AN/I, attempts have been made to deal with the the notability concerns by Prod and by merge/redirect. As both have failed, XfD is the next step in the process. Tarc (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad faith. First, the timing one week before the actual election when this article has been around for quite awhile. Second, 'redirect' is not a synonym for 'merge'. See Scott Harper for how to do a proper merge into an election article. Third, the entire 'exchange' is here. I did not start the 'snarkiness'. However...in the last couple of days I've stumbled across, by clicking a blue link, other deleted/redirected articles done by other Wikipedians as well, with no discernible posting/discussion/consensus, which is why I became concerned enough to request a freeze until after the election. This is not the place or time, but eight days from now will be fine. At that point tempers will be cooler and a rational discussion will, presumably, follow. If I had known of the Douglas Herbert article earlier, I myself would have marked it for Merge, but it linked to the 'total U.S. election' article/chart rather than the state's election article, which is what I've been working from. If this Scott M. Sipprelle article had been marked for Merge earlier, I would have supported leaving it as a separate article until after the election, at least partly because of its length making a merge more problematical as far as readability for our readers. Quite honestly, this whole debacle reminds me of Florida's infamous "clearing of the election rolls" shortly before the 2008 election. There's simply not enough time to do a thorough job in deciding each and every one of these candidate articles at this point in time, and if we get it wrong then our readers are the losers. Wikipedia exists to provide information for people. How does it contribute to our mission if we remove candidate links to Project Vote Smart, the FEC, Open Secrets, Follow the Money, WhoRunsGov - all the nonpartisan information available but which doesn't show up in a Google search - a week before the election? Let Tarc get one article 'okayed' for deletion, and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts he (and his friends) will take that as a license to delete the article of every candidate they don't like. If that happens, there's no possible redress for our readers. And will I be able to keep up with all their deletes? Not likely. And once they're deleted, how do I know if they should be restored or not? Flatterworld (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what's changed since the last AFD? DC T•C 19:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's ignore POLITICIAN for now, it is clear that he hasn't won a national position. Thus question thus becomes has he met the General Notability Guidelines. Guess what, I think he has (this list will only include each source once):

  • The Trenton Times has specific in depth coverage on him [1]
  • Asbury Park Press
  • New Jersey Jewish News
  • According to Politico, was the first candidate to attack an opponent over HealthCare [2]
  • Before his campaing he publshed a book wherein he was hailed as a Wall Street insider/executive. Amazon Bio
  • In 2000, long before his political asperations, he was interviewed as a Wall Street expert by The Street - Pretty, It Ain't: Scott Sipprelle Paints a Picture of New Market Realities.
  • New York Times did a piece on him in 2000 as well. "INVESTING WITH: Neil Barsky and Scott Sipprelle; MRG Nucleus Fund"
  • How about 2008 article on in Bloomberg (Actually this is more on his brother Dwight, but Dwight is notable because of the company shared with Scott.)
  • A recent Reuter's article about Scott joining the board of MSCI this is about Scott the businessman, not Scott the political candidate [3]
  • How about the New Yorker in 1999 James Collins, The Talk of the Town, “Wall Street Follies,” The New Yorker

Mentioned in international press

He also is mentioned (but more as a competitor in a contested race) in the WSJ [5], Jerusalem Post[6], Philadelphia Post [7] I could go on and on... this guy may not meet POLITICIAN, but he clearly meets the GNG.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the nom's defense, the incumbent by definition fulfills POLITICIAN, and is nom'ing both parties candidates. That being said, I do believe it was done to be pointy by doing so during an ANI discussion on the topic and announcing that he was sending up trial balloons.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er location, did you perhaps miss the coverage from 1999, 2000, 2007, 2008---long before he was an aspiring politician wherein major news sources where talking to him because of his notability? Or the coverage from 2010 completely unrelated to politics, but as a businessman?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Balloonman: Thanks for your message. I've reviewed the article, its sources, and various Ghits about the subject. There is no doubt that he is a very accomplished man, however, I have difficulty convincing myself that notability would stand on his business merits. I'll monitor this debate and the article for changes/updates. Thanks! Location (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I just wanted to check on this one to see if his business coverage/accomplishments swayed ya.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who cares? The tag will now stay until the election; I'll cast my !vote then. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has plenty of sources, meets GNG. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agreed, there are plenty of sources here to satisfy the GNG. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT. This request is taking the wrong path. The proper path is to use the Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from templates, invite all those involved in both articles, and discuss the issue until consensus is reached. There's no need for a rush to judgement in any of these cases. (Note: One person requesting a Merge is not a consensus, see Ed Potosnak example.)That's why these Merge Templates exist, and that's why they're (normally) used when the issue involves (but not necessarily limited to) a claim that a person is notable only for one event. If consensus is reached, then an actual merge of material rather than a simple delete, or even a delete and redirect, is done. See Scott Harper for an example of this. See Ann Marie Buerkle for an example of the opposite, showing no history at all of what was in the previous article. That article was actually deleted, then a redirect was added after the fact. That's why it's wrong to do deletes in these cases, and that's been the consensus achieved in many, many AfD requests for various political candidates over the years. An example of a non-merge redirect is Lisa Johnston (AfD consensus here). That's simply wrong, as a nominee notable even for an event still has notable information - it's just a question of where it belongs. There is no evidence of any actual merge of material in her case, which makes the election article shockingly unbalanced (aka Undue Weight). There seems to be a lot of confusion on the definition of 'merge' in these discussions. It is not a synonym for a redirect. There are two steps, and both must be taken. Or, the article should be allowed to continue to exist, with 'improvement tags' added as needed. Flatterworld (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least temporarily. per Flatterworld. Man, what a waste of time and effort. There is merely ONE editor, Tarc, that wants to flat out destroy the work of many editors 7 days before Election Day. The information is going to be destroyed for no good reason other than Tarc wants to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. As to this particular article, just wait one week and then after Election Day there will be time to decide which articles are to be deleted and which ones will be merged. There is no harm to Wikipedia in waiting, but there is huge potential harm to Wikipedia in destroying editor's work prematurely. It makes Wikipedia look like a partisan free for all. Also, complete deletion is absolutely wrong. There are less destructive ways to handle these articles.--InaMaka (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficiently notable per comments above. Neutron (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Location, Tarc. Tarc's actions are completely in line with past practice and Wikipedia's deletion processes. That some are seeking to change the rules for this one election, and Tarc opposes them, does not mean this nomination is disruptive or in bad faith, since it stands well on its merits. RayTalk 05:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarities sake, the accustations of bad faith do not stem from his nominating them, but rather for the timing of the nominations and the attitude demonstrated at ANI.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:24, 27 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scott_M._Sipprelle_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1169729829"