Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Herbert

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. policy is quite clear in these cases Spartaz Humbug! 03:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Herbert

[edit]
Douglas Herbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article for a person who is a candidate for office but otherwise lacks notability. WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3 addresses this point specifically, that just being a nominee does not automatically confer notability. This article also fails the general notability guidelines, as the coverage is either a) name-drops within an article about their more well-known, notable opponent b) simple voting/registry directory of who is running for this seat, or c) on the local level only, with no national interest. Per the further explanation at WP:POLITICIAN on what to do with failures, a merger to the appropriate district page is a viable option to deletion. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep IMO, Bad faith nom. Tarc has been involved in an ongoing dispute with another editor who started an ANI debate related to politicians who are running for office and the election is a week away. That editor left Tarc a snarky comment notifying Tarc of the ANI discussion. Tarc response is to open this AFD with a comment at ANI saying, so off we go with a few trial balloons. In 8 days we will have a better understanding as to whether or not these candidates win or lose and thus deserve an article or not. Anybody who casts an !vote now, which is supposed to give guidance to a closing administrator, is doing so via a crystal ball. It doesn't matter if they meet Politician today, what matters is will they when this is closed? Thus, in light of the ANI discussion, I consider this (and all other nominations made by Tarc on the subject to be POINTY.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete - fails notability here and now. Period. Should have been left as a redirect in the first place, and I see nothing POINTY in the nomination. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at this point, just another nn candidate running for office. As per repeated precedent, being a candidate does not pass WP:N, and I see nothing else here that argues notability at this time. Resolute 19:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending election With the election in a week, zero damage is done to WP by allowing the discussion to run the full course until the election is over. This is not even an unreferenced BLP - for which 10 days would be normal for deletion. Collect (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOHARM is not a valid reason to retain an article, sorry. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    but Collect is talking more in the terms of noharm than the guideline noharm---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • response - we didn't do this with the UK general election; ISTR that articles like this were routinely deleted a day or two before the election. Why do our American non-notable candidates get privileged in a special way? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad faith. See the entire 'exchange' here. In the last couple of days I've stumbled across, by clicking a blue link, to other deleted/redirected articles done by other Wikipedians as well, with no discernible posting/discussion/consensus, which is why I became concerned enough to request a freeze until after the election. This is not the place or time, but eight days from now will be fine. If I had known of this Douglas Herbert article earlier, I myself would have marked it for Merge, but it linked to the 'total U.S. election' article/chart rather than the state's election article, which is what I've been working from. I simply don't have time to track every article every day from now until the election. Do I care about this article? Not particularly. I do care about Scott M. Sipprelle, more of a 'contender' and certainly a better article, which Tarc also deleted and redirected. Let Tarc get this article 'okayed', and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts he'll take that as a license to delete the article of every candidate he doesn't like. I have no interest in watching the 2008 Wikipedia Campaign Wars repeat themselves. btw - 'redirect' is not a synonym for 'merge'. Flatterworld (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming bad faith is not a valid keep rationale. If this individual is notable, I am certain you can show that to be the case, rather than attacking the nominator. Resolute 19:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, KEEP. First, he won the primary election, so in that sense he's already notable for winning an election. Second, the office is at the state or national level, so he's presumed notable. You want to tag the article with helpful suggestions (such as more inline citations, more coverage, whatever), knock yourself out. Flatterworld (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to abstain from voting, myself. Though I did look over the 12 Google News hits. Only the first six seem to have anything to say about him. After that, other than the campaign press release, they only seem to mention him in passing as the opponent of the article subject. Hazardous Matt (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits is not a valid criteria. The "hits" should be evaluated for quality, not quantity. Tarc (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug may not meet POLITICIAN, but let's see if he meets our GNGs? Here's some news on Doug (note no single source/magazine used more than once):

None of these are trivial mentions or places where the candidate is covered as an aside such as the New Jersy Jewish News [1], they are all in depth coverage about Doug, which clearly establish him as meeting our GNG. There are sources that I could have added, but I'm not completely sold on their reliability.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_Herbert&oldid=1169946821"