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. I believe the keep arguments have been answered convincingly, and everybody with the exception of the article creator agrees to delete.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Fisher (Businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Politician who has never held elected office and has not received significant coverage outside of a single event (the 2014 Massachusetts gubernatorial election). Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nonnotable candidate. If he wins the primary, then we can reconsider. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I worked very hard on this article and he is running in the election and he should have his own article just like the rest of the candidates running. This page really shouldn't even be considered to be deleted.Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for your wasted work, but we don't include articles on the basis of how much work went into them. You should have read the notability guidelines first, in particular WP:NPOL, where you would have found that Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I'm not seeing the references in the article amounting to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," (note that Republican party publications are not likely to be considered independent, reliable secondary sources for coverage of one of their candidates - nor would Democratic party publications, for that matter). If you think this should stay, you'll need to show that such significant coverage exists. GoldenRing (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these people wanting the article deleted are not even from Massachusetts. When I first used Wikipedia back in 2005 there was less strict rules and the website was less strict than it is now. Just because he's never held public office doesn't mean anything he still deserves an article. Wikipedia is just too strict now and no one this website can create an article anymore. I disagree with everyone who wants it deleted. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not designed to promote candidacies. This man is not notable unless elected. Most of the other candidates hold or have already held offices that qualify them for inclusion. Those that do or have not should also be deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Well as long as Joseph Avellone still has a page than Mark Fisher should too. They are in the same boat on having articles on Wikipedia. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What about article X? comes under arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Avellone gets some reliable source coverage aside from just running for office. The Mark Fisher article does not cite any. I'm not 100% convinced that Avellone is notable, but notability needs to be judged on each article's individual merits. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Joseph Avellone is also nominated for deletion and I have argued it, also should be deleted. GoldenRing (talk) 09:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NPOL - A candidate for office without significant independent coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talk • contribs) 16:09, 14 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Sorry, Plyjacks, but I used to be an inclusionist, too. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well you should be ashamed wanting this article deleted as should everyone else, if they think it isn't fit right they should fix it themselves instead of being critical. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe issue isn't the quality of the article, but the notability of the subject. If there is no significant coverage, he is not notable, something beyond fixing by an editor.TheLongTone (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you because I've seen many false facts on Wikipedia in the past and some now as well. Your facts aren't strait either. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • PLEASE go and read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Understand that it applies to this situation. GoldenRing (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On May 16, 2014 in the noon time I updated the article and added five more sources and some more important facts in the media. I was asked to improve the article and I finally did, It looks a lot better than it did before and it has more proven sources. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The edits don't fix the main problem. This is a biography of one event, running for office. The citation you added about Fisher's background is not reliable. The others are yet more coverage of his run for office. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as the nominator states. All RS coverage comes from the 2014 election. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the article is written, he does not seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN or other notability requirements. Jersey92 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2014 (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.