Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Avellone

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Avellone

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

Subject's business career has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. He has received some coverage as a candidate in the 2014 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, but nothing significant outside of this single event. Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Joe Avellone was the subject of media intrigue during the 1990's due to his involvement in HMO Blue through Blue Cross. Also, his political career expands further than the Massachusetts Gubernatorial election in 2014. Avellone was a senior advisor to Paul Tsongas, and served as an advisor to Gary Hart, John Kerry, and Edward Kennedy on their respective Presidential Campaigns. Pbruce1110 (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, as the Gubernatorial election is ongoing, it would be poor form to rush to delete this page . That being said, it stands for debate whether a political campaign can be viewed as a "single event" as defined by guidelines. The Massachusetts gubernatorial process consists of caucuses, a convention, primaries, and a general election, each of which has historical significance. Pbruce1110 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - WP:NPOL is clear that standing for office does not give notability. Absent reliable, independent secondary sources giving significant coverage, notability is not established. Of the sources listed, I'm basically seeing one article at the Washington Times - otherwise there is a single paragraph about him in Time, a sort of CV at Businessweek and a few non-independent sources. I don't think this cuts it. GoldenRing (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assertion that WP:NPOL is clear that seeking office does not mandate notoriety. In fact, according to WP:POLOUTCOMES, the community has traditionally accepted candidates seeking office, while "(l)osing candidates for office below the national level are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated." Also, along with an article in the Washington Post, there are at least two independent news sources listed documenting his Gubernatorial run, and one discussing his involvement in Blue Cross' HMO program as a healthcare professional, a Big Five healthcare company of which Avellone was a Chief Executive. This qualifies as a "second event" of notability. Pbruce1110 (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree all you like; nonetheless, the policy is clear: 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". As a candidate for political office, he is not notable unless there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All that any of the sources at the article say is that he is running, along with some non-independent regurgitation of information in his press releases and website. This is not significant coverage in the secondary sources. GoldenRing (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - the above comment got mixed up with another AfD. What I meant to say is that the references that have been added in the last day only talk about his candidature; this does not amount to notability apart from the fact he is running. GoldenRing (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph in Time Magazine and a quote in an article about HMOs does not demonstrate previous notability. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep I agree that this article is lacking, but in no way is the subject not notible. Avellone is known through Boson as an activist for reform of substance abuse treatment in a capacity unrelated to his political aspirations. I suggest expansion of an article that is not thorough enough, not deletion due to lack of effort from the community. I also have to agree that seeking office does not qualify as one event, and general policy is to delete articles of office-seekers if they do not win the election. As long as an individual is in consideration for a statewide office, the person in question is of note. I suggest a furlough of this debate until the ballot is set, which if I am not mistaken will take place on June 14th. If Avellone does not make the ballot, the article must be deleted. If he does, it is irresponsible to delete this page. Jjgaybrams (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)— Jjgaybrams (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The relevant policy for whether politicians are notable or not is WP:NPOL. It states that candidates for office are not notable unless there is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. If that coverage is there, then you should provide links to it; if that coverage is not there, then the article should be deleted. We don't create articles because the subject might become notable, and such articles are routinely deleted; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. GoldenRing (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh per WP:BARE. He might just make it over the limit. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - If everyone wants my article on Mark Fisher deleted so bad then this article should be deleted then too. They are just about the same. There article are very much a like.Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not an appropriate reason to vote for an article to be deleted. Tiller54 (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- They are actually both running for Governor of Massachusetts in the 2014 election with almost about the same experience. So there actually is. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it isn't. 2 different candidates in the same election do not automatically have the same level of notability. Tiller54 (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize for trying to compare articles and I will keep the article on Mark Fisher I created out of this. However, the Massachusetts democratic party is strong and with Juliette Kayyem, Steve Grossman and especially a big name is Massachusetts like Martha Coakley. Coakley is a huge front runner right now with about almost 44% more percentage than others and Joseph Avellone only has 1% in the polls tells you something. I just don't think this guy will make it as successfully and as well as Martha Coakley will and again I state it has nothing to do with the article I created on Mark Fisher, nothing. Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's notable for his business career and his run for governor. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 05:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The run for governor specifically does not make him notable. If he is notable for his business career, then we need significant, independent coverage in multiple reliable sources. I'm not seeing it. GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 22 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.