Talk:Chris Gibson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

Chris Gibson (New York Congressional candidate)[edit]

I have put Chris Gibson (New York Congressional Candidate) back on the list, and I noticed that he was removed for being "unnotable", however if anything he is the most notable of the people listed and probably the "Chris Gibson" most likely to be searched for on Wikipedia (the other two are respectively an Australian politician who has been out of office 18 years and someone who saw a "delta" plane but isn't even mentioned in the article he redirects too). Chris Gibson (New York Congressional candidate)is a congressional candidate running this year in swing district who has been endorsed by the New York Post [1], is a NRCC Young Gun [2] and is a regular topic of discussion at upstate political blogs [3] and [4].

In fact I move that considering the gaps in notability and the comparable currency of the people that Chris Gibson (New York Congressional candidate) be the main article for Chris Gibson, with a link to the disambiguation page at the top of the article for the other people of the same name.

Does any one have objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeagleman (talkcontribs) 16:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that he wasn't notable because that's a redlink, and we don't assume that candidates are notable. Given the existence of an article, I don't complain about his inclusion. However, the Tasmanian guy's notability is more firmly established; I see no reason to make the New Yorker the primary topic. Nyttend (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, but how so? I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but it seems to me that a person in a hotly contested election would be the primary topic vs. a person who has been out of office for 18 years (and wasn't significant when he was in office). Theeagleman (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)