- Tom Del Beccaro (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
WP:BEFORE did not appear to have been conducted. I have found several articles that give the subject significant coverage, including the Sacramento Bee, KNTV hosting an article written by the Associated Press, Mercury News, KFMB-AM, etc. While most of the coverage about the subject revolves around the 2016 United States Senate election in California, that means the subject at least falls under WP:BLP1E, and as such per WP:POLOUTCOMES, should be preserved as a redirect to 2016 United States Senate election in California#Republican Party. Subject also has received some coverage as the CA GOP Chairman, and has written for Forbes, and Fox Business. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*Endorse if the issue is an error by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robert McClenon:The closure Ritchie333 looks like they followed consensus, which is fine. That said I am presenting new information that was not mentioned in the AfD. Additionally, I have no way of knowing what was in the previous article, to see whether it contains content which shows that the subject is notable beyond BLP1E. And yes, IMHO the nominator made an error.
- @Robert McClenon: If I was closing this discussion, I would find your two comments, above, to be confusing. Consider making life easier on whoever closes this and striking whichever one doesn't apply, so the closer need not have to guess what you really meant. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The confusion is the result of the filer having confused the DRV observers as to what the basis of the DRV request is, but I have struck the Endorse, not because I think that there is an error by the closer, which there isn't, but because that doesn't seem to be the issue here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies in advance, I have not been involved in AfD in quiet some time, so I maybe a bit rusty.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification - Then my recommendation is to allow re-creation in draft space followed by review. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse A lightly attended AfD, but one where the consensus was clear, and I don't see any articles presented here which talk about him significantly outside from his candidacy. Running for office does not entitle you to a Wikipedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 05:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I'm confused about the arguments citing WP:BLP1E and WP:POLOUTCOMES, as both of those argue for deletion. There's no new information presented here; just more routine coverage of the same thing. A google search for Tom Del Beccaro senate yields 46,600 results. Adding a date restriction of 2017 to the present gives 62 results. Nuff said. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse perfectly valid close and I think any attempt a recreation would need to have more than just coverage of the 2016 Senate race. Unelected candidates for office are not usually notable unless they have some other source of notability. In this particular election the candidates from both parties all competed in a single primary and the top two proceeded to the general election, and the subject came fifth, behind two other Republicans. I don't think there's any point in restoring the article to turn it into a redirect to the election given that the subject didn't play a huge role in it and the deleted article barely even mentions the election (it was mostly about the subject's role as the chair of the California Republican Party). Hut 8.5 21:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hut 8.5:, would there be opposition for Tom Del Beccaro to be recreated as a redirect to the campaign article?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't object to it being recreated as a redirect. You wouldn't need to come to DRV to do that by the way, there isn't anything stopping you from just doing it. Hut 8.5 06:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps then it would be best if I withdraw this review, recreate the article as a redirect, and request the history of the old article to be included in the history of the redirect? --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- that's one way; the other would be to recreate in Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How about this then. Let's recreate the article, reduce it down to a redirect, and leave it at that? If the subject gets significant coverage for more than the one event (the election)(subject was chairman of CA GOP, but most of that content was about the party and not the chairman), then the article can be changed back to a normal biography article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|