Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renato Mariotti

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. E.M.Gregory pretty much called it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Mariotti

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, this is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- he needs to win the election, not just run for it, to clear WP:NPOL, and otherwise he needs to demonstrate and properly source that he would already have been notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of the candidacy itself. But that's not what this article shows: his prior work as a laywer is referenced to two primary sources that cannot support notability at all, and one source that tangentially verifies the existence of a court case while completely failing to even mention the subject's name in conjunction with it (thus failing to be coverage about him.) And other than that, all we've got otherwise is campaign-related coverage, not even slightly out of scope with the volume or breadth or depth of campaign-related coverage that any candidate in any election could simply and routinely expect to receive. This is not enough to make a candidate notable just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that under WP:NPOL, coverage during campaign itself can suffice to pass WP:GNG if a candidate attracts an unusual amount of INDEPTH coverage beyond his local area.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice; completely agree with nom. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mariotti was notable before he declared his candidacy. He was the lead prosecutor in the first-ever anti-spoofing case, and he's a well known legal commentator. You seem to think that running for public office automatically makes a person NON-notable, regardless of his or her other accomplishments. Or maybe you're just nominating it because I created it, and you have a problem with me. --MopTop (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MopTop personalizing a discussion is generally a bad way to go. You say he was notable before his candidacy but based in which sources? The legal case entry cited doesn't even mention his name. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The question of whether he was notable before he declared his candidacy or not is a matter of whether the article shows sources which were covering him before he declared his candidacy or not. No article about any person can ever claim anything that hands them an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing even if the sourcing isn't there to carry it — but there are no sources here which support your claim that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons before becoming a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 12:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mariotti was a famous prosecutor long before he declared his candidacy for Attorney General. See updated 'Career' section with several news references from before his candidacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderlisa (talk • contribs) 02:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new sources that have been added are not about Mariotti for the purposes of demonstrating preexisting notability — with one exception which isn't enough all by itself, all of the others just namecheck Mariotti's existence within coverage about other things or people. That's not what we're looking for. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mariotti was an assistant US attorney, not the district attorney. If he had been the later he probably would be notable, but he wasnt, so he isnt at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non-notable person. There are 170 assistant US attorneys in the Northern District of Illinois alone with many infamous convictions. Because Wikipedia supposedly has unlimited storage does not mean we should have a article on everything known to man or we end up with articles like List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States or Virginia A. Seitz (two years and resigned).
Keep - he's clearly notable as a lawyer and legal commentator. FWIW, I follow him on Twitter. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by reliable source coverage in media, not by who you follow on social networking platforms. But the sources here aren't demonstrating notability at all — in every single footnote here that predates the campaign coverage itself, he's merely namechecked as a giver of soundbite, not covered as the subject. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a man already well known as a successful public prosecutor and well-known pundit on air, in print and on twitter BEFORE he launched his candidacy. And, of course, it is true that press coverage during a campaign can be sufficient to pass WP:GNG. This discussion reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Canova, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conor Lamb - we couldn't reach consensus there, either.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2018 (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.