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. So, someone canvassed all of the editors who participated in the last AfD, and surprisingly we've ended up with the same result. Someone intelligent once said that "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results". I would strongly suggest that if this article is nominated for deletion again in the future, that the previous AfD participants are not canvassed. If you'd like to know when the article is nominated for deletion, put it on your watchlist. This type of cacophonous discussion is not helpful. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 16:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Márquez

John Márquez (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)

City councilman (a position that is not inherently notable in itself) that failes WP:Politician. Sources are all entirely local in scope or do not provide a substantial level of coverage. Previous AfD resulted in no consensus, however each keep vote was either an comment on the nominator rather than the article or pointed to the vague notion that sources exist without referring to any. Yaksar (let's chat) 16:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep the nominator is wrong, this guy has several mentions in the San Francisco Chronicle a major national newspaper in addition to the Contra Costa Times a newspaper for a major metropolitan area. He was the first hispanic for the city council of a major port city Richmond, California of over 100,000 people and served as vice mayor, and in fact is one of the longest serving politicians with over 23 years on the council. Also this is not your average city council, they get national press coverage all the time for being a controversial green party leaning city even in Cuban newspapers, this is a speedy keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciferwildcat (talk • contribs) 05:24, 16 April 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. "Several mentions" and significant coverage are two different things. And your other points are interesting but don't provide inherent notability (indeed, vice mayor is hardly ever a notable position). Please give specific sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are several mentions that are significant coverage, such as an extended quote as an authority on the subject, and other SF Chronicle sources in the article and also noted on the talk page.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please look of when a speedy keep is appropriate.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There actually are criteria for a "speedy keep", see WP:Speedy keep. None of them apply here. MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it is warranted.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately your opinion is not what determined the speedy keep criteria, which I still encourage you to read.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I agree that LWC could align his arguments better with WP:SK criteria, it is a logical fallacy to conclude that just because LWC doesn't make such an argument, that WP:SK criteria are not applicable.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be sure I follow, you're saying it's wrong to assume that his speedy keep is not applicable just because he doesn't argue in a way that speedy keep applies?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The factors noted in the previous opinion do not appear to have resulted in any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the individual. It's true that the subject has been mentioned in numerous news stories, some in reliable sources, some even in reliable sources independent of the subject. But those are in stories that focus on other matters. Many of the articles are behind paywalls, so my review is certainly not comprehensive. But the snippets of paywalled articles, and the full-text of the free ones, all give rise to the same conclusion—this person hasn't been the subject of substantial coverage. Since it does not appear that the person meets any of the de facto criteria, I don't see any policy-based rationale to keep. Bongomatic 08:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, the coverage is more than trivial and there is a lot of it. Being behind paywalls is not an excuse to delete.LuciferWildCat (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which coverage is "more than trivial"? I didn't say that being behind a paywall is in any way a rationale for deletion—it's obviously not (likewise coverage that isn't online at all is sufficient to establish notability). However, the snippets available on the paywalled articles strongly suggest the level of coverage and what they suggest is that it's not significant. Bongomatic 14:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well since trivial means of "little importance" and he has been used as an expert by a national newspapers over decades, I find that to be beyond trivial. He is not mentioned in passing, and WP:N#Significant Coverage states that the subject need be the main topic, he is not mentioned in passing but as part of the subject in general in most articles and quite often. There are dozens of articles on the Chronicle alone here, and others for the SJ Mercury, Berk Daily Planet, and Oakland Tribune, far from Richmond.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last nomination the nominator nominated a lot of these articles all at once, and most of them were notable, with the rest no one really spending too much time with. Is there anything about the guy other than mentioning him running for office, and briefly quoting him at times when he was in office? Did he do any interviews? All my searches show a lot of paywalls, so hard to know if he got significant coverage or not. Dream Focus 10:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. LuciferWildCat (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's true that he is not an obvious keep per WP:POLITICIAN; city councilman is not an automatically notable position. However I believe he may fulfill WP:BIO. He has received coverage in multiple sources, not just his local paper (the Contra Costa Times) but three regional papers (the San Francisco Chronicle, Oakland Tribune and San Jose Mercury News). --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom and per rationale in first AfD. Not seeing how a minor city councilman passes WP:POLITICIAN. Would also note that there has been canvassing of this AfD pbp 16:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also was a vice mayor and this is not a minor city, it has over 100,000 people, which is the standard definition of a large city.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing? In fairness, it should be noted that Luciferwildcat notified EVERYONE who commented on the previous AfD, regardless of how they voted. The exception was you, Purplebackpack; as you can see at my talk page, he asked me to notify you because of your mutual agreement to stay away from each other. I declined but I said you would undoubtedly find it anyhow, as you promptly did. Also please note that we all agree the subject does not pass WP:POLITICIAN; that's not at issue. The question is whether he has enough independent coverage to pass WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not real canvassing to a full extent. That being said, when the purpose of this new AfD was to avoid the weak or unacceptable !voting of the last, bringing in all the same editors seems like this may not get the clearer consensus I was hoping for.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's just good policy and although not required it is generally recommended that all editors of an article be notified of a nomination, since that was already done the last time, I figured it might be better to simply notify those that did decide to comment on that occasion. Furthermore it is not canvassing to any extent, you should get a better understanding of what canvassing is. Notifying the editors is actually usually the nominator's (your) job, should you choose to accept it, but someone else doing it is never canvassing. Canvassing is selectively notifying random people or people likely to support or oppose a deletion in order to pad your argument and weigh down the votes. As I support keeping and most of the people I notified decided they thought it should be deleted it is really an illogical and impossible determination that I could be canvassing in anyway.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that again rescue-tagging it will get us in the same bucket of syrup as last time. pbp 18:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yaksar, "the clearer consensus" you were "hoping for", being you wanted people who agree with you. You shouldn't just keep nominating something for deletion until you get the results you want. That's basically gaming the system. Dream Focus 23:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DreamFocus, let's not get personal - and let's get our facts right. Yaksar was not the nominator last time and I don't think they even participated in that discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood what I wrote. Their statement "when the purpose of this new AfD was to avoid the weak or unacceptable !voting of the last, bringing in all the same editors seems like this may not get the clearer consensus I was hoping for." He didn't like the results last time, so wanted to try the AFD again. Doesn't matter its a different person nominating it. When something is kept, it shouldn't just keep being nominated every few months when nothing has changed, no matter who is doing it. And those who participated previously should be known about any reruns of course. Make more sense just to open the old AFD, so people wouldn't have to show up and repeat what they already said. Dream Focus 00:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purplebackpack89, last time you had a large number of articles nominated at once, and no one wanted to waste time sorting through all of them. Don't blame the Article Rescue Squadron for that. You had other people participating that weren't part of the ARS. Dream Focus 23:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And all those people voted "delete". To a man, everyone who voted "Keep" in the previous discussion was involved with the ARS or rescuing articles in some way. Had the ARS stayed home on that AfD, the article would almost certainly have been deleted. I expected the nominations to be non-controversial, which they would've been if the ARS hadn't come in guns blazing. I also resent the apparent implication you're making that Yaksar and I are engaged in some sort of canvassing, possibly with each other pbp 03:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I challenge your assertion that everyone who wasn't "part of ARS" voted delete, and that the keep votes were from Article Rescue people "to a man". The discussion itself contradicts you. There were actually four "Keep" votes at that discussion. They were: Carrite (the first commenter at the discussion, long before any rescue appeal was made, who voted Procedural Keep on all of your mass nominations); LuciferWildcat as article author; Unscintillating; and Northamerica1000. (Not sure how to count Dream Focus since they struck out their "keep" vote.) So are you contending that Unscintillating and Northamerica1000 only came to that discussion "with guns blazing" and voted "keep" because of a rescue appeal? I doubt if you have any evidence of that and I think you owe them an apology. I often see Unscintillating and Northamerica1000 participating in discussions here, and their opinions are considered and balanced. And anyhow that's not how ARS works; the idea is to improve the article, not to rush to the discussion and vote "keep!". As for people who are "involved with rescuing articles in some way", I will happily claim that description; I rescue a lot of articles and am proud of it (see my userpage). But I voted "weak delete" on that first discussion. I have changed to "weak keep" on this nomination because the article has been improved and has much better sourcing now. Please Assume Good Faith that we all base our opinions on the actual state of the article and what we can find about the subject in research - rather than some preconceived bias toward "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Here is a list of members of the Article Rescue Squadron. Neither of them is on it. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The main point is that both AfDs, the article was nominated for rescue, and in both of those cases, the rescue template was used improperly in that it was used to get more keep votes rather than actually fix the article. I, for one, believe it should be removed from the Rescue list pbp 16:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Lucifer wasn't the article author pbp 16:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. He didn't originally write the article, but he expanded it threefold and became its principal defender. As for the Rescue list, I agree that it would be improper to use the Rescue template to try to recruit "keep" votes, but that doesn't appear to be what happened in this case - or in most cases. It may be a misconception on Lucifer's part, or on your part, or both, to think that a Rescue template means "come to this AfD discussion and vote keep!" It doesn't. It means "Consider improving this article!" and as such it can be added to any article. The Rescue Squadron folks may respond by trying to improve the article, or they may ignore it. I have never seen any evidence that they react to a template by simply voting "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This would indicate a widespread belief that tagging/listing something for rescue was used to canvass for "Keep" votes pbp 15:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Always a small number of people claiming that nonsense, but most usually see reason and agree the opposite. Been through this so many times, many don't bother responding to those things, or just scan through and don't read it all, it just long and never ending nonsense. And in that particular discussion, it was determined that the template on the main article was a problem, while having an Article Rescue List was just fine. It wasn't eliminated based on unproven canvassing concerns. Dream Focus 15:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only if Marquez is covered or mentioned there pbp 18:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator I see no issue with that redirect.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears from this vantage to be sufficiently notable. SF Chronicle etc. are sufficient. Newspaper mentions last week of him being named to a San Pablo oversight board for the defunct redevelopment authority. I am moreover amused that the "John Marquez" crime novels have the fictional policeman in Richmond, CA. Collect (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wish I could see what was behind all those paywalls to be certain. Being covered in multiple newspapers, and not just brief political announcements for his local area, seems to indicate notability to me. Dream Focus 23:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anything you see on highbeam? I gotz one of those free accounts there now.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I signed up for the second batch, but don't have one yet, so I just have to trust others that say they have read things. Dream Focus 01:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in Trust, but verify, even if the "verify" is minimal—nobody's given a citation (not requiring a web link) for any source claimed to provide more than "just brief political announcements".
I have now reviewed more than 200 hits in Factiva. Many are duplicates. The vast majority are quotes relating to routine council and committee business. What is remarkable is how little else there is. When he's described, it's never with any details beyond "considered a leader in the Latino community" or "incumbent" or similar descriptors. Even when mentioning legislation co-sponsored by him (local ordinances are not notable, by the way), the coverage never has provided any meaningful information about the individual—his background, his accomplishments, his politics, even—beyond the most basic coverage of his position. If there's any example of numerous coverage in numerous articles demonstrating non-notability, this is it. Bongomatic 04:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Pretty clearly non-notable pbp 15:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If its "pretty clearly" the case you are a horrible advocate for your position. The honest truth is that Marquez appears to have gotten more coverage than the average city council member. City council members, at least of similar-sized cities, would usually would not meet WP:GNG. Marquez has stuck around long around, and served in enough roles, ran for mayor, etc., which led to the no consensus result in the first AfD. Not a shocking result. Its not like we don't articles on other city council members lying around, see, e.g., Mary Pat Clarke, Adrian Schrinner, etc. I'm not saying whether we should have them, I don't care about OTHERSTUFF, I haven't voted, I'm just noting why debates like this one get gummed up.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which would explain why I didn't start this lol... pbp 19:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's always much easier fruit out there than stuff like this one.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not particularly relevant, as a) John Marquez isn't Maria Viramontes, and b) Maria Viramontes was deemed both at AfD and DRV to be non-notable pbp 15:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your say it is not particularly relevant, but at that page you mention "some shmo who served on a City Council in a medium-sized town", so it is relevant.  Also, WP:GNG is relevant.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think mere "votes" that are entirely arbitrary and contradict policy and precedent should be given their due low weight by the closing admin.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that !votes without evidence and contrary to the guidelines should be given reduced weight by the closing admin.  For example, it is not helpful if a !vote looks at nine reliable sources with significant coverage and says "not seeing a hit on WP:GNG".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, by the looks of it you're trying to turn this request for some actual sources into a discussion of edits in a totally different discussion. I've seen you try to derail discussions before, please stop.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I thought you wanted to talk about sources.  Time for me to leave here.  But before I do, here is what I have found so far:
  • [1], Officials meet with public over immigratin raids, Delfin Vigil, San Francisco Chronicle, 29-01-2007, access date 17-04-2012*
  • Voter Information Pamphlet, City of Richmond, 2006
  • Meredith May, Chronicle Staff Writer (October 30, 2001). "'Teflon Don' comes back in Richmond. Reese trying again to be kingmaker". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. Retrieved 2011-12-10. Two years after an FBI probe into vote-buying at Richmond City Hall... Another mayoral hopeful, City Councilman John Marquez, chose a campaign theme of a toilet bowl over the slogan, "Flush the @#! out of City Hall.
  • "Juan Márquez" Richmond concejal

Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll need to look through them all when I'm somewhere with a stronger internet connection. But cherrypicking 3 random ones so far has not been promising. A one sentence mention of the subject is not at all significant coverage. It would help if you could specify which you consider to actually provide significant coverage (as in something more than his name on a list or a one line quote about him).--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, let's start from the top.
  1. The site doesn't load, but from what I can tell it's the newspaper of a local community college where he worked, so it's not really independent (nor does it show the type of greater coverage we're looking to find)
  2. Can't load with my connection, but if I've correctly identified the article at another source then it seems to just be short mention with no significant coverage (please correct me if it is more in depth)
  3. Only mentioned in one sentence with no real substantial information along with other council member; not significant coverage.
  4. This one the coverage is more substantial, but it's from a local political blog, not one of the wider papers referred to above.
  5. One quote from him, no real coverage.
  6. City site, not independent
  7. City's voter info pamphlet, not independent
  8. Candidate described in one sentence in an article about new city council candidates. We find this type of election coverage at this level unacceptable to prove notability for candidates for much higher offices, let alone a city council position.
  9. Just one sentence about his campaign slogan, not significant coverage obviously.
  10. His candidate statement on the city's site, not independent.
  11. Nothing but the numbers from the election.
  12. That just means "Richmond Councilor" in Spanish. Also his name seems to have changed to Juan. Is it a source or are you just trying to carpet bomb with sources regardless of whether they show notability?

--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • Unscintillating, please read WP:GOOGLEHITS. Claiming that something is notable by mass-dumping a bunch of questionably relevant links isn't helpful. It was repudiated in Viramontes and several other articles where you've done this; I hope it's repudiated here as well pbp 05:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yaksar, BIO states that in cases where the coverage may not be significant but the mentions are numerous, that indeed they add up to significant, and it's pretty clear that this is the case for this gentleman. I would also note that nothing has been dumped here, they items were hand picked and quotes added, most sources are included in the article itself and their usage is self evident.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will assume good faith and that Luciferwildcat is simply not a careful reader. WP:BASIC states
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
This obviously contemplates that there is "substantial coverage", "trivial coverage" and various levels in between. To spell this out in more details:
  • Substantial coverage in one or a couple of sources is sufficient to establish notability.
  • Trivial coverage—even if in multiple sources—may not be sufficient to establish notability.
  • Coverage in between "substantial" and "trivial" may demonstrate notability if there are enough.
For the subject under consideration here, nobody has demonstrated anything beyond the most trivial—nothing in any level of detail beyond the most basic of narratives about official acts that would be reported as a matter of course. Bongomatic 08:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer me this, how is it we have so many statements about this man sourced if the coverage is less then trivial? If there are multiple statements beyond simply party affiliation and election-win-loss then trivial the coverage it is not, and since there are multiple statements and article sections cited by various sources from major newspapers, the coverage is multiple.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are the many sourced statements about this man? Many of the facts in the article are sourced to the most local / non-independent of sources that don't confer notability to someone even if covered in detail. Bongomatic 01:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right so the Contra Costa Times, Oakland Tribune, San Jose Mercury News, Berkeley Daily Planet, East Bay Express, San Francisco Chronicle are "local" for Richmond, but that does not make them unreliable nor independent. They cover all sorts of topics but the only situation in which there are not independent is in a scenario where Newspaper X is being used to cite article on Newspaper X's writer Y, that is not the case. And I refer to the statements sourced to the various independent third party sources such as the Chronicle.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the coverage in all the sources we've discussed (or at least I've tried to examine above) has been trivial mentions. I feel like the issue is that you've created this concept that a bunch of trivial coverage combines into real coverage, but that's not actually written anywhere.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" and I find that the all the cited content in the article is not trivial, it may not be substantial coverage but the multiple independent sources combined seem to demonstrate notability here. This is a figure you would regularly read about in the paper and I feel there are more sources hidden in the pre-internet era and wikipedia is the only place we could really aggregate it all for the sake of history.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional resources from several more newspapers,here LuciferWildCat
Even more here at the Berkeley Daily Planet and even more here at the East Bay Express]LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There added even more content now.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fortunately for the rational construction of an encyclopedia , the GNG guideline says itself that it is not universally applicable; it's the general guideline, not the universal guideline. A mayor of Richmond would I think be notable; a city council member not. There's no clear line on size--the dubious range for mayor in the past has been between 40 and 100,000, The range for council depends on the relative importance of the council as well as the size of the city, but we've deleted may under 600,000 -- and kept some also--this is an area where we are not particular consistent. I've always said for a person to be notable they have to be notable for something, and I don't think he is--every mention is trivial. Most of the additional ones are merely a list of who voted for what on a particular measure; I tend to take a very flexible view to what is significant coverage, but I have not yet found one that is significant coverage by even my standard. The solution to problems like this are local wikis. (Bongo asked me to come here, saying he pretty much knew what I'd say, and he's right: I do say this consistently about local politicians.) DGG ( talk ) 15:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue about Cinco de Mayo speaking time is a "who voted for what" issue? Also; So you were canvassed?LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Have you read WP:CANVASS? The criteria are: scale, message, audience, and transparency—which do you think was breached? Bongomatic 00:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I should correct DGG's summary of my posting on his page. I said "no idea of your views". Generally, I view DGG as an encyclopedia builder—that is to say, and editor with a strong preference for the inclusion of encyclopedic content. Generally where we disagree is when I opine to delete and he opines to keep. If we have interacted on local politics before I do not recall the event or the outcome. Bongomatic 00:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe this [2] counts as canvassing. Things not going your way, so you called someone to ask them to join us, and they just happened to vote the way you did. DGG has voted delete in similar AFDS as this one hasn't he? Have you both voted delete together in a previous AFD for a politician? [3] Dream Focus 00:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bongo, yes I have and the request from one single commentator definitely would seem to fit the bill for votestaking, quite red handed, and also more subtly I would say Campaigning and Stealth canvassing IMO.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Luciferwildcat, Dream Focus, either refactor / strike your comments or start an ANI or whatever. Either your reading of WP:CANVAS is wrong or mine is—and I'm not the one throwing around accusations of violations of behavioral guidelines. Bongomatic 02:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW this seems to be a better filter for AfD discussions where DGG and I have both participated (don't know if it's comprehensive, but seems as though it should be). The only time I see us having converged on a political subject (I'm not claiming to have done a comprehensive review) is here, where DGG opined to keep an article I nominated for deletion.
More specifically,
  • with respect to the votestacking claim, see DGG's AfD stats, which show that his "keep" opinions are more than twice as frequent as his "deletes";
  • with respect to the stealth canvassing claim, WP:CANVAS defines "stealth canvassing" as "contacting users off-wiki", which was not the case here, where I left a note on DGG's User talk page (which is specifically contrasted to stealth canvassing). DGG, by the way, is the 7th most watch user, so "stealthy" is hardly the way to describe posting there. Bongomatic 07:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bongomatic must be perma-banned for this horrible canvassing. LOL. just kidding. I'll say this -- DGG's opinion is well-respected by most everyone, but inviting him to an AfD where you already know its one of his areas where he'll vote delete, in a drama-fest AfD like this, is going to get some flack. The closing admin can take this into account while appreciating DGG's thoughtful input.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above and in my note to DGG, I was not aware of DGG's view on this area. Bongomatic 14:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to transparency: If someone asks me to look at an article or a discussion, if I comment there I always say so, and say who asked me (unless it's one of the random RfC notices).I think I have also made it clear numerous times that they should not anticipate whatever it is they might want me to, & I think I've proved it many times. I don't deliberately go out of my way to be unpredictable, but I use my own standards for deciding what is appropriate to say. Therefore, I do not consider notifying me of a discussion as canvassing: if its a field I am interested in, I am likely to get there anyway--especially if it's about deletion; if it isn't something I'd otherwise pay attention to, I'll respond if I think it interesting or I have something I want to say. Canvassing is notifying multiple people known to be on the same side ,and Bongo did not do that.
As for my opinion, I don't comment to add to the vote count--I comment in the hope of convincing anyone open to listening, or of giving my own perspective for what it may be worth. What I would have to say is as relevant or not on what you may think of its merits, no matter how I got there. If you don't agree with me & think you've answered my objections, my coming here hasn't hurt you--it's enabled you to better defend your position. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DGG pretty much took the words out of my mouth. Yes, he exists, we can certainly verify that, but what has he actually done? What's special or notable about him or something with which he's been involved? SÆdontalk 08:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it's in the article, cited, and more than trivial.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2012 (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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_M%C3%A1rquez_(2nd_nomination)
No tags for this post.