Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hildebrand

David Hildebrand

(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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Jon Ivy (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No candidate in any election ever fails to be the subject of some coverage in the context of the election campaign itself — so that falls under run of the mill, and is not coverage that can be used to make a candidate pass GNG just because some media coverage exists. If the mere existence of campaign-specific coverage were enough in and of itself to get over GNG, then every candidate in any election would always get over GNG. But our job is to maintain articles about holders of office, not everybody who ever just ran for one — we have an established consensus that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a repository of campaign brochures for unelected candidates. To make a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article, you must show one of three things: (1) he's the winner of the Senate election in November, (2) he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before he became a candidate, or (3) his candidacy is getting so much more coverage than most other candidacies are also getting that you could credibly claim his candidacy had already made him nationally famous (the Christine O'Donnell exception.) Yes, if he actually manages to defeat Dianne Feinstein in the primary, then in all likelihood the coverage of him will expand enough to pass that last condition — but simply being able to show four pieces of campaign-related coverage is not evidence that a candidate has already cleared our notability standards, because every candidate in any election could always show four pieces of campaign-related coverage, and he's also not a special case just because he might defeat Dianne Feinstein in a primary that hasn't happened yet, because WP:CRYSTAL also applies. If you could show something like Christine O'Donnell's 168 footnoted references, then his candidacy could be considered a special case — but just four doesn't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, candidates can be covered in Wikipedia if they are candidate, but that doesn't mean they qualify for their own page. In this case, he is already listed as a candidate in the United States Senate election in California, 2018 page. However, he would not qualify for his own page based on the reasons given above by Bearcat. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response. I do say that it seems that your established consensus seems to be waning: Danny_Tarkanian Scott Ashjian John Chachas Wayne_Allyn_Root Larry_Elder Ron Unz... I could spend all day finding articles about people who are only on wikipedia because of their runs for office, and unlike with our subject here, written about mainly by themselves. You seem to be doing a few things:

1) Treating all races the same, comparing a race for city council, or representative from Delaware, in the same context as a U.S. Senate race in California.

Even if you come to the same conclusion, you are making an error if you're not using different criteria for one office from the other.

2) Treating sources such as Fox News as more reliable than the Sacramento Bee.

Just look at the 168 footnotes you're citing for Christine O'Donnell. If you're valuing quantity over quality, there are several dozen blogposts and videos featuring our subject here I could include.

3) Pronouncing a rule of general applicability but only applying it in select cases.

Just because "every" candidate will get some news coverage, does not mean that the news coverage they get should be discounted. If the general rule is that media coverage is a sign of notability, then media coverage is a sign of notability. Applying it differently to one category of people over another is ridiculous. All serial killers will get some media coverage, would you say that their media coverage doesn't count? Rather, the rule should be to judge the reliability of the sources and how much they directly are reporting on the subject - no discount should be given to campaign coverage and the reporting should not be analyzed differently. AND, since your supposed *consensus* to the contrary is being arbitrarily applied depending on the editor and the moment, I don't think it's a rule with much staying power.

Again, thanks for your response. All editors should be required to give the standard at which they are judging deletion. Jon Ivy (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]