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. joe decker ^talk 05:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Carlos Guillermo Smith (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Another WP:BLP of an as yet unelected candidate in a future election, which as always is not a claim of notability that gets a person an article in and of itself per WP:NPOL. This one's a bit more on the borderline than most, because there is a potentially legitimate claim of preexisting notability for prior activity, namely his work as governmental affairs manager for Equality Florida -- which is a claim that would be enough if the person could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but isn't enough to confer automatic inclusion rights just because he held the role. But the sourcing for it isn't particularly solid yet, relying on his being namechecked as a provider of soundbite in a couple of news stories about the group rather than coverage that's substantively about him, and the bulk of the sourcing here is stacked on the candidacy.

While I've already stripped it, the article did also lapse into the standard advertorial "the candidate supports peace, love and herbal tea" campaign brochure spiel that defines a big part of the reason why we don't grant candidates Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- and while the article was initially tagged for notability by an NPP reviewer, the tag was removed by the article creator on the basis of a couple more pieces of candidacy-sourcing, rather than the improved Equality Florida sourcing it would take to actually make the difference here. Since a not-yet-elected candidate gets to have a Wikipedia article only if he would already have been eligible for a Wikipedia article before becoming a candidate, his includability depends on being able to source him over WP:GNG for his work with Equality Florida -- but that's not sourced well enough yet to already get him in the door for it, and the candidacy coverage doesn't assist at all.

So I'm willing to withdraw this if better sourcing can be located for his work with Equality Florida -- but if it can't, then it's a delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins his seat. Bearcat ( talk) 15:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete He is a candidate for a state house seat. If elected he will be notable, he is not now. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply

in addition to being a candidate, the individual is notable for being a well-known and active lobbyist in Florida politics. The section that was recently deleted which includes political positions had numerous credible news sources reporting on this individual and his campaign. A person running for office doesn't lack notability simply for not being in office yet. I believe the number of news articles on the subject of or referencing his individual from a variety of sources justifies the existence of this article. Audreyscott ( talk) 18:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Nobody said it's impossible for a candidate to have preexisting notability for other work — in fact, I specifically stated in my nomination statement that it was possible in this instance — but a candidate for office does not gain encyclopedic notability because of being a candidate in and of itself. Part of local media's job is to cover local politics, so all candidates for office always garner some coverage of their candidacy in the local media — but a candidate only becomes suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia if (a) for some reason the volume and type of coverage expands way beyond the bounds of the normal and routine level of local media attention that all candidates always get, or (b) you can properly establish that they would already have qualified for an article for the work they were doing before they became a candidate. If neither of those situations applies, then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to become an appropriate article topic.

The fact that you can source some of his statements of opinion, further, does not augment the notability of his candidacy — because any candidate's statements of opinion can always be similarly sourced, so that fact doesn't inherently distinguish his candidacy as more notable than any of the other 500 or 1,000 other people across Florida who are also currently candidates in the same election. It's a core principle of Wikipedia that we are not a public relations platform — we don't exist as a venue for distributing aspiring politicians' campaign brochures.

As I already said above, it's possible that Equality Florida may constitute enough notability to get him over the "preexisting notability for something else" option. But it's not a role that automatically gets him in the door just because he held it — it's a role where the sourcing has to show that he gets over WP:GNG for it, but the sourcing that's been provided so far, which just namechecks his holding of the role and isn't about him as such, isn't enough to demonstrate that. If better sourcing can be added which makes a stronger case for the notability of that work than is present right now, then by all means bring it on. Bearcat ( talk) 20:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 16:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 16:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per Bearcat, but here's an ex cathedra editorial: "Carlos Guillermo Smith, a lobbyist for Florida's largest gay rights group, told the Herald-Tribune that the bill is..." The Gainesville Sun 24 October 2015, [1]. That was the first of 54 Proquest hits in pretty much all the major Florida dailies, covering his lobbying career. I respect the heavy lifting Bearcat does in identifying the deluge of article about folks running for office, who will not be notable enough to have articles unless they win. It is possible. not likely, but posible, that there is enough on this one to justify an article. IMO it would take WP:HEY a profile in a major media source published before he began exploring candidacy, that is, it would take credible validation of pre-candidacy notability by WP standards. It doesn't look likely to me, but if creator or someone else someone thinks they can source that, feel free to flag me. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as nothing at all convincing yet for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 22 May 2016 (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.