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 --Mike Cline (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Popaditch[edit]

Nick Popaditch (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)

Failed congressional candidate who lost in a 60-40 landslide. Has never held political office. Fails every criterion under WP:POLITICIAN. Qworty (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 19:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure I'd call 60-40 a landslide victory.  :)

• Also, Delete. He definitely fails WP:POLITICIAN, and as far as WP:GNG goes - there is little coverage in WP:RS that is about Popaditch. What I saw was significant coverage of the election, as well as some stories about the debate between he and the incumbent - but very little where Popaditch himself is the subject. -Addionne (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we generally shouldn't have articles on losing election candidates unless they have notability for some other reason. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per all of the above and to be discussed. I note the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Proposed_objective_definition_of_a_fringe_candidate_for_WP:POLITICIAN. I thought there was a strong consensus that failed candidates for national (or state or povincial) office are not per se notable, absent "more than routine coverage" of their candidcy. There are also several other AfDs going on about this very topic. Reasonable people can disagree whether a 60-40 victory is a landslide. At 40 %, he's certainly not a fringe candidate. The only possible measure of notability is his Silver Star, a fairly high honor. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 60% is a landslide per the WP article on landslide victory: [1]. Qworty (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable as being the Cigar Marine and his Silver Star as said above and latly we have articles about candidates for example, Tramm Hudson and Doug Hoffman. Spongie555 (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CREATIVE. His book has been recommended by the Marine Corps Commandant for professional reading [2]. That constitutes significant impact in its field. Quite possible that, as the Cigar Marine, he qualifies under WP:GNG as well. Ray^Talk 15:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Failed candidates are not notable. Athene cunicularia (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 15:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 15:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Failed political candidate: no pass on WP:POLITICIAN. An estimated 150,000 Silver Stars given out: no case for presumptive notability on that alone. A book he co-authored appearing on a 12-page suggested reading list: not remotely close to the "widely cited" criterion of WP:AUTHOR. Being the "Cigar Marine:" classic WP:BLP1E. Zero+zero+zero+zero = zero.  Ravenswing  16:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The criterion is "significant" or "substantial" work. If you want reviews (as if being on the commandant's reading list doesn't constitute a major recommendation by itself), check out The Midwest Literary Review, Leatherneck magazine, [3], etc. Ray^Talk 17:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon, but there is way more than zero here. Take a look at the GNG. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Silver Star, war icon/subject of a famous photograph ("Cigar Marine"), author, and politician all roll up nicely to fit into the GNG. Independantly, they might not be enough to some, but he has plenty of independant coverage for all four aspects. Judging him solely based on one notability guidline is simply unfair and lacks a well-rounded perspective (it would be like nominating Leonardo da Vinci simply because he isn't a published book author). bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some pretty heavy expansion and added lots of referencing. I think that should make it clear that he's recieved considerable media attention well before he ever wrote a book or ran for office. I hope that the folks that looked at WP:POLITICIAN and stopped considering there will look again at the bigger picture: there is far more to this individual than his short political career. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, was 'Merge and redirect'. I earlier thought: "The information in the article could be summarized and merged into the election article." but because of the book and iconic photo I now think it's worth keeping. Flatterworld (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no election article from this district just to say. Spongie555 (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2010#District 51. Obviously you're not the only one unaware of it, because I just added a link to it from the Nick Popaditch article. That section certainly could be expanded (see any other state election article), but it does exist. Flatterworld (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. With the photo, book and failed candidacy, I think there is just enough to squeak by WP:GNG. Location (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The "Cigar Marine" is significant as the subject of an iconic military-related photo, such as the sailor kissing the nurse in the famous V-J day photo in Times Square (V–J_day_in_Times_Square). His recommended-reading memoir, Silver Star, and political candidacy add substantial interest. It should not be merged into the election article, as that is only one of four major concepts of interest. JD Lambert^(T|C) 22:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Quite a few reasons to keep, none perhaps sufficient on its own, but it's clearly not the case that "zero plus zero plus zero = zero". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.134.140 (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-- Clearly an entire article has been created around Nick, this includes alot of notable information, as a former member of the service, I think the page is appropriate and I see no reason to remove it. Nick is not just an individual, but also a former member of the armed services, I see no reason why this should be deleted. So in shot, Keep Jab843 (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-- While he certainly no longer fits WP:POLITICIAN I do think he gets by on WP:GNG with a published book as well as the news coverage of the Cigar Marine picture. He also had a significant military service with his Silver Star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvPok (talk • contribs) 10:34, 11 November 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.