- 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. Courcelles 23:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Julien Modica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate seat from Virginia. He is a perennial democratic challenger for Senate and Congressional seats and has never qualified as a challenger. A bank fraud convection and lying about one's name tends to turn people off. Creating editor refused to have article redirect or merged. Bgwhite (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that Modica is a perennial democratic challenger carries no weight based on the references provided. If the author was aware of the history. Modica himself has placed most, if not all, the legal arguments in his case on the web, under Docstoc. The fact is Modica brings insight and experience to the world of Virginia politics not seen or heard before. Do I have a bias? Your damn right I do. Modica's candidacy brings me hope that I may be able to, someday, live a normal life. The life taken from me while I was defending the rights Bgwhite has just abused. I and Mr. Modica, I am sure, are aware of the person who wrote the negative comments. At this point in my recovery, I am limited to what I can do for Mr Modica's campaign, but whatever I am able to do, I will do until I can do it no more. After all I have been through in my 23 years, how dare Bgwhite steal the one ray of hope I have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bgwhite's criticism is baseless. And if he continues I, not Mr. Modica, will expose him for the fruad he truely is. This starts my formal complaint to prevent Bgwhite from ever contributing on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J3mm0 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC) — J3mm0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I have added the section Legal Controversy and explained on Modica's behalf what he did during the period in question AND ultimately described the fact that the 1993 Court decision does not affect Modica's campaign. To make it very, very clear, I am the mother of Modica's greatest supporter, but I will be perfectly honest the comments Bgwhite made about Mr. Modica have truly upset my son and they have upset me. Has Bgwhite ever served in a combat zone? Has he ever stood face to face with an enemy who does not value his own life? If Bgwhite does not remove his criticism of Mr. Modica, I will demand Bgwhite not be allowed to ever participate in Wkipedia ever again. The next time Bgwhite sees a combat injured veteran, I pray he says something nice.
Keep Seems to meet WP:NOTE 12 news articles mention the subject The controversy section however was sourced to one article and covered more than half the article, I have removed it pending more sources for it.Darkness Shines (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Delete Change to delete per Bgwhite, I have looked at the sources and there are no indepth coverage of the subject. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As you are relatively new, please see WP:GNG, specifically, "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Most of the articles you listed do not give significant coverage of Mr. Modica, but have a sentence or two that he is running. One article is his website and three articles are the court's direct outcome to his bank fraud court case. This leave only two articles that deal with him directly in significant coverage. Bgwhite (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What are you talking about Bgwhite? You may not like Mr Modica, but that does not give you reason to just make things up!!!!! As was noted by Darkness Shines, there are twelve articles that are written about Mr. Modica or involve Mr. Modica in the article (Washington Post, Washington Star, Reston Times, Leesburg Today). None mention anything about bank fraud. What Pray-Tell are you talking about? The thirteenth is from the Modica For Senate website. You are correct. I have never done this before and you, my dearest, are making it very unpleasant. This is my second motion to get you removed from Wikipedia. Some very, very unkind things were said about you at my dinner table this evening. Bgwhite, "Shape-up or Ship-out." — Preceding unsigned comment added by J3mm0 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — J3mm0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- While it is certainly possible for people to be blocked or even banned from editing Wikipedia, simply nominating an article for deletion that someone else doesn't think should be deleted is not grounds for either blocking or banning. Reasonable people do disagree about things, and that is expected on Wikipedia. LadyofShalott 01:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looking at the sources in the article, and searching through Google News and Google, I can't find much information of substance about this person which isn't written by him or those that work for him. There's a smattering of trivial stuff, but nothing of the depth I would normally consider to be necessary to meet the baseline requirements spelled out at WP:GNG. --Jayron32 01:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable,
and I'm pretty sure that J3mm0 is Julien Modica, hence major COI. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Catching up on J3mm0's talk page while I've been less active the last few days, maybe the user is indeed not Modica but someone close to him. That isn't so relevant, but what is relevant is that this individual doesn't seem to meet GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I was initially inclined to !vote "Keep" on the basis of the subject's "perenniel candidacy" (which, if significant, could indeed make him notable under different criteria), but it's not really significant enough for that. I took a look at the article to see if some editing could help it along, but it's so poorly constructed yet so over-referenced, that any deletion of trivial information would be a deletion of sourced information -- allowed, certainly, but guaranteed to raise a stink. It seems, unfortunately, that deletion is the best course of action here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independent notability. -LtNOWIS (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Favor Delete There seems to be some intensity of feeling about this one, at least from some quarters. Perhaps it would be advantageous to clearly and pleasantly state that the decision one way or the other to keep articles is based very much on criteria, rather than passion. The article appears to me to pass certain objective criteria: 1) significant coverage; 2) reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Some of the delete votes seem to be linguistically articulated in a fashion that suggests that the vote is based on adverse assessments of these criteria, but this may be due to an imprecision with the language, whereby the term, "significant" can be understood either in terms of "significant amount of words" (the sources meet that definition) or "significant relevancy" (this is a legitimate pivot question, and may be the reason for these delete votes, as the article may not.) To say it differently, quoting from the guidelines, "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." This criterion ("suitability") is met by benchmarking to other similar potential/existing articles. There seem to be three content elements here that may (or may not) meet muster as to being suitably notable: any one (or combination) of 1) being a US Senate candidate 2) having sustained a major injury and recovered 3) some hypothetical legal aspect of note (as has been alluded to several places in this discussion.) (I will not enter the fray on that 3rd matter, other than it seems tangential/off task in terms of the "suitability" question.) Only items 1 and 2 seem to be at play here. To benchmark to other articles, it seems to me that these two content elements do not meet comparative benchmarks for encyclopedic inclusion. I do not personally take a position on whether these "suitability" benchmarks are objectively correct, only that they should be applied equitably. By/in comparison with other potential/existing articles that Senate candidacy or brain injury recovery, separately or together, do meet the suitability threshold, so the article should be deleted, or its contents merged to another article. A credible (believable, and most importantly, potentially refutable ! ) threshold has been articulated, "Candidates for office do not get a page unless nobility can be established outside of running for office or they are the major party candidate after primary elections." If however it can be shown that these elements have heretofore been the basis for "suitability" for other articles, that would trump my personal experience / the articulated threshold. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2011 (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.