Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hildebrand
- David Hildebrand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Draft:David Hildebrand (politician) already declined at AfC by myself and DGG. Draft creator unhappy with the decision based on the conversation on my talk page. Bottom line is the subject of the article is only a candidate and is already listed on the election page in Wikipedia. Unless he wins or can be found to be notable for something else, he fails WP:BIO. CNMall41 (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Subject fails WP:NPOL and I'm not seeing enough for WP:GNG. Ahead of an election nine months from now, this looks like a promotional effort. I think WP:BLP1E applies, even if there was more coverage about his quixotic run. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as per nominator. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. --
The subject of the article meets Number 3 of WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". He has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.
As stated in WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Here, the subject has been covered in multiple printed newspapers and online sources, some of which are cited in the article. Coverage is ongoing, becoming more significant daily.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Here, the sources cited are major news sources, online blogs, and video news programs. There are plenty of them secondary sources, ranging in reliability.
Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Here, though the article is just a stub. But that does not mean it is not notable. There is more content to be written and more sources available.
I don't know what standards you're using, but the wikipedia standards clearly show you are incorrect in your judgment, and I ask you to fix yourself.