Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Redkey

David Redkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL. He is not notable outside of a run for office. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Marquardtika (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Indiana. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

	Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep. The article meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline as well as the notability criteria for political candidates. There are multiple independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. ABC15 Arizona, a mainstream and professionally edited news outlet, produced reporting that focuses directly on Redkey’s experience in the probate system and the broader policy issues connected to it. This is non-trivial, independent coverage that discusses him in detail. Ballotpedia independently documents his federal candidacy, and while Ballotpedia is not the sole basis for notability, it is an independent, reliable confirmation of his status as a declared candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. The subject is also involved in several matters before the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court. High-level appellate litigation involving a named individual is widely recognized on Wikipedia as a legitimate basis for notability when it is documented in reliable, independent records and when the litigation has public significance. In this case, the conservatorship proceedings have resulted in multiple appellate filings and have been discussed publicly in the context of state-level conservatorship reform, further demonstrating that the topic has extended beyond private dispute and into public scrutiny. The combined coverage — including mainstream news reporting, independent political documentation, and the substantial public record created by appellate litigation — meets Wikipedia’s standard for significant, independent sourcing. The article itself is neutrally written, fact-based, and does not engage in advocacy or promotion. For these reasons, the subject satisfies the requirements for inclusion, and the article should be kept. Sevendusted81 (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: One article about his conservatorship case is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG, and the rest of the sources are not independent of Redkey, self-published sources, or only mention him briefly. -- Reconrabbit 19:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

  There is also this:

  https://www.axios.com/2025/10/16/hakeem-jeffries-speaker-leader-democrats-primary Sevendusted81 (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

  Keep

  If he is mentioned in Axios, and is directly quoted, that would also make him some what notable since he is the first person listed under the Jeffries section.

  Here is the quotation from the article:

  "David Redkey

  Running in: AZ-01

  Incumbent: Open (R)

  "As he’s the current Democratic leader, I support Hakeem Jeffries. However, I would like to see deeper conversations about what I call foundation economics, using the federal government’s power of taxation, tax credits and trade policy to incentivize companies to provide living wages, invest in American workers and eliminate tariffs that drive inflation. The leadership of the Democratic Party must not only defend democracy; it must rebuild the foundation of economic fairness that sustains it." Sevendusted81 (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

  Additionally, he appears on Lloyd Chapman's podcast through the American Small Business League.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZhkltgIhwA Sevendusted81 (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep.

That is a different David Redkey.

This David Redkey looks like he was in Axios, ABC 15, a podcast, and a slew of Court cases in Arizona. JamisMavisDavis (talk) 02:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona. A redirect is, overwhelmingly, the usual outcome for political candidates. Everybody knows we are not Twitter, nor Ballotpedia, nor a soapbox. As an encyclopedia, thus a tertiary source, we rely on secondary sources, rather than primary sources (like blogs, social media, podcasts, and court records). We do not "confirm" anything. For the record, we almost always delete articles about individual guardianships and conservatorships, to prevent BLP and HIPAA violations, unless it's about someone who is independently a public figure and clearly notable, like Britney Spears. In ordinary times, this not a big problem, but nowadays, this is a legal risk ... a great idea for my next "Concerns" portfolio. Bearian (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  HIPAA violations only occur if actual health information is shared.

  For example, "his blood test said he had " and showed a picture of it.

  So, unless that is on the page, it would not be a violation; however, HIPAA violations are used by "bad actors" to prevent the disclosure of release of their misconduct.

  Here is an example of lawyers utilizing confidentiality to hide misconduct:

  Yes, lawyers can misuse attorney-client confidentiality, often under the guise of protecting clients, to shield their own own misconduct, like covering up fraud, violating communication rules (Rule 4.2), or hiding evidence, though ethics rules (ABA Rule 1.6) provide exceptions for preventing client crimes/harm, but attorneys must still navigate conflicts where revealing client info might expose their own ethical breaches, sometimes requiring disclosure to defend themselves or when a client's criminal acts create significant societal harm, as highlighted by famous cases like the "Buried Bodies Case". Sevendusted81 (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect per the nominator and Bearian's comments. The subject doesn't currently meet notability requirements, but naturally this could change in future if they are elected. I also share Bearian's concerns about the need to be especially careful with adhering to BLP policies here. Greenleader(2) (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  A request for a deferral because the topic was contacted by outside network for a news story. Sevendusted81 (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  Per the policy, "The proposed deletion process for unsourced biographies requires all biographies of living persons to have at least one source in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise). Once the article is tagged in this manner, the This template must be substituted. tag may not be removed until at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject is provided. If none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after seven days. This does not affect any other deletion process." Considering Axios alone, a national article, that directly quotes the subject, that would suffice. There is the current articles that reference the subject. So, that fulfills the requirements for living biographies. Sevendusted81 (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  Additionally, A substantive, independent network has contact the subject. It will be conducted by an individual, who handles stories regarding some of the subject policy position, indicating direct relevance to the subject's existing notability.

  This imminent, third-party coverage directly addresses the core issues in this debate (WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV). Per established AfD practice, the prudent action is to close this discussion without prejudice to allow for evaluation of this new, material evidence. The article can be renominated if the coverage proves insufficient. Sevendusted81 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete and/or redirect. As always, unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while unelected candidates get articles only if they can demonstrate preexisting notability for other reasons independently of the candidacy that would already have gotten them an article anyway. (For example, Cynthia Nixon is not ineligible for an article just because she failed to win the election when she ran for office, because she already had preexisting notability as an actress.) And no, the fact that he can show a bit of campaign coverage does not get a candidate over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL, either — every candidate in every election can always show some degree of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then NPOL would just be completely unenforceable and meaningless since nobody in politics would ever fail to be exempted from it. So the existence of some purely run of the mill campaign coverage does not, in and of itself, make this candidate more notable than other candidates who also have campaign coverage.
  But far more than half of the footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the relatively few hits of proper WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage in the mix aren't building a compelling case that he would pass the "was already notable for other reasons before becoming a candidate" test at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  The subject has been contacted by a news station to appear on the upcoming issue regarding the 2026 election. However, that would not be the only reason for the subject's inclusion. As been outlined by the previously by other users, the subject being a politician is one thing, but also being an advocate and person speaking out against financial exploitation via conservatorship/guardianships of the elderly, disabled and other vulnerable peoples is another reason for the inclusion. With the forthcoming decisions of CV-24-0476 (Under Advisement), CV-25-0236 (active), and CV-25-0289-PR (Pending) if that gets published by a secondary source...that may play a role in notability.Looking at CV-24-0476, that appears to deal with fraudulent inducement and counsel switching from one side to another without disengagement. That will likely get some additional coverage and novelty to the subject. Looking at CV-25-0236 and -0289 appear to be continuation of the same legal matter. Sevendusted81 (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

  Interviews are not independent. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

  Getting asked by the media to provide soundbite on a topic other than himself is not, in and of itself, an article-clinching notability criterion. We're not looking for coverage in which he's speaking about other things, we're looking for coverage in which he's being spoken about by other people. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

• Redirect per established precedent for unelected candidates that were not previously notable and have generated only local/passing coverage. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect. I don't think the conservatorship case provides enough prior notability to get over the bar of WP:NPOL for not-yet-elected candidates. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. Sockpuppetry is involved in this case. The author of the article, Sevendusted81, is connected to User:DavidRedkey, and connected to a single-edit !vote above from JamisMavisDavis. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 18:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect per Bearian. Even worse than the sockpuppetry (and the author's corny excuses around that) and the author using AfD with such a defensive posture, this is likely a WP:COI violation, which would arguably merit a WP:TNT at a minimum. I giggle when Sevendusted81 says "the subject" as he is likely the subject. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 20:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)