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 keep. MelanieN ( talk) 23:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Rod Silva (businessman) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Individual is virtually unknown outside of running for President of the United States as a member of a party that may not even have ballot access (and, as it stands, is only on the ballot in Colorado). Individual doesn't meet the minimum level of notability required for an article. ALPolitico ( talk) 15:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES, "losing candidates for office below the national level are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated." MB298 ( talk) 17:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Notice that the same rule applies for national level, except that they are also noted in lists of hopefuls. It's the sentence above in WP:POLOUTCOMES. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 06:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment — I doubt the article meets the alternative notability guideline for politicians. Still, it seems to meet the general notability guideline, which is usually a Keep. But then there's the people notable for only one event exclusion, that one event being forming a minor party and running for high office. I see some coverage of Silva independent of that event — as a restauranteur and as an "undercover boss" — among Google hits; if those sources are found to be reliable, I'd lean toward Keep. Matt Fitzpatrick ( talk) 01:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep per MB298 and Matt Fitzpatrick.-- Cojovo ( talk) 19:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I am the creator of this article, which was never added to the AfD log until 18 February 2016, nor was I notified of this AfD by the nominator. I believe that the variety of sources used in this article establish that the subject meets the general notability guideline. In any event, a presidential candidate who actually qualifies for the ballot is likely to be notable enough to merit an article (see United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012 for comparison). Although Silva has only qualified for one state ballot so far, he still has months in which to try to qualify for other state ballots. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

WP:POLOUTCOMES specifically mentions lists of hopefuls, and indeed he is listed on United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 09:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep, WP:POLOUTCOMES says leaders of a registered party at any level is notable even if not winning elections. In veritas ( talk) 03:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

No, POLOUTCOMES says they can be notable on that basis, if the coverage of them in that role is adequate to meet GNG. In reality, lots of small or fringe party leaders just get redirects to the article about their party rather than standalone BLPs — and nothing in this article, for that matter, even suggests that he's actually the leader of an actual political party. Sticking a placeholder name in the "party affiliation" slot on your registration papers doesn't automatically mean there's an organized or registered party behind that name. Bearcat ( talk) 22:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete: WP:POLOUTCOMES doesn't have rules for candidates for current races, but is clear that once the election is over this guy is not notable, unless he wins or otherwise becomes notable. "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability". We can't have articles on topics because they may become notable in the future, so reasonably that means it's not notable. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 09:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete the notability would have to be as a restaurateur; he does own a chain of restaurants that have been mentioned in the trade press, and the Orange County Business Journal would be a legit source, but it just doesn't add up to sufficient coverage for a bio. Perhaps the chain could support an article. The presidential thing looks like mere self promotion. Unless our guidelines actually stipulate that getting onto the ballot once, in one state, standing for a newly invented Party, makes you notable. I wonder if this state has an unusually easy way to get on the ballot. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Changing my vote. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete at best because this is still questionable for solid independent notability for a solidly notable article, questionably improvable aside from the current. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

@ SwisterTwister: Note that articles are not "solidly notable" or non-notable, topics and subjects are. Per WP:NEXIST, topic "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Note that additional sources have been provided below in the discussion. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The two Orange County links, the Restaurant News article and the North Jersey link put this restaurateur BLP past WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. The other links are acceptable when supporting an article already deemed notable. This passes, in my evaluation. BusterD ( talk) 16:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. While the US presidential election is that rare beast that's so widely covered that a non-winning candidate who fails NPOL still has a chance of passing WP:GNG anyway, that does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie on every single person who happens to declare himself a candidate for president. I can certainly see the possibility that he might be able to pass our inclusion rules for businesspeople if a lot more substance and sourcing were piled onto the restaurant chain, but those rules don't confer an automatic inclusion freebie on all businesspeople either. No prejudice against recreation later in the year, if the volume of RS coverage gets quite a lot more substantial than this, but as of today the sourcing and substance here is not yet enough to earn him a standalone WP:BLP instead of a listing in United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016. Bearcat ( talk) 22:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Update: I'm also now switching to keep, as better sourcing has been found for preexisting notability on the basis of the restaurant chain. Bearcat ( talk) 19:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Found a handful of RS articles that contain significant coverage of Silva: [1], [2], [3]. It should be noted that all are pre-presidential candidacy and pre-Undercover Boss appearance. I contend that the addition of these sources to those already included in the article put the subject over the top of the WP:GNG hurdle.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 17:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep The reliable and verifiable sources clearly about the subject meet the notability standard. Alansohn ( talk) 03:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep changing my vote as per editors who have brought sources showing notability as a restaurateur, not on the basis of the presidential candidate publicity stunt. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Passes WP:BASIC, per a review of sources in the article and sources presented in this discussion. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 26 February 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.