Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Porter

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 no consensus. Does not seem to be enough of a strong consensus to delete at this point in time, editors are urged to improve the quality of WP:RS secondary source referencing at the page, and please continue discussion, at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Porter

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

Political candidate who does not (yet) meet notability guidelines at WP:POLITICIAN. Current claim of notability stems solely from margin of victory in most recently held primary election. Article subject has held no public office beyond local hospital district board. | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is leading in public opinion polls and has a strong chance of winning the Nov. 2 general election. Wouldn't the fact that he has already won more than 700,000 votes be a factor in establishing notability?

Here is a link on Wikipedia of a defeated statewide candidate from 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Radnofsky. In 2010, Radnofsky is the Democratic candidate, not likely to win, against Attorney General Greg Abbott. Billy Hathorn (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional link: Here is a second link of a Democratic nominee on the Nov. 2, 2010 ballot in Texas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Chavez-Thompson. I don't think she is likely to win against David Dewhurst, but she qualifies for inclusion. In her case, it could be for her AFL-CIO connection. Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BURO comes to mind. The odds of this one winning the election are so high that we'd be engaging in pointless bureaucracy to delete now, and re-create when, not if, he wins. Ray^Talk 15:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Unelected candidate (thus failing WP:POLITICIAN) who has not received the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. In fact he seems to be pretty much off the radar even in Texas. His "huge upset" in the primary garnered no press coverage that I could find except for a one-paragraph mention in the San Angelo Standard-Times. No doubt this is due to the not-very-notable office he is running for - a seat on a state regulatory agency. I see that the sitting commissioners do have Wikipedia articles, so if he wins an article can be written at that time, but it would be WP:CRYSTAL to keep it now on the basis that he is likely to win 2 months from now. By the way (in response to the WP:Otherstuffexists argument from Billy Hathorn), I note that his Democratic opponent Jeff Weems does not have a Wikepedia page - so why do you think Porter should? --MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to an article on Jeff Weems, but I don't have the material for writing it. Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that Jeff Weems isn't notable either. --MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Weems is notable, as I don't have info on him. He has already polled more than 400,000 votes.Billy Hathorn (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Wikipedia sees lots of these types of articles come election time. Currently fails significant coverage in independent reliable sources necessary to pass WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. References #1 and #2 are election returns (i.e. these are essentially stats, not significant coverage), #3 is a blurb about the candidate from the Republican Party (i.e. not independent), #4, #5, and #6 were written by the subject (i.e. not independent), and #7 is the subject quoted in a local paper (i.e. WP:NOTNEWS. Location (talk) 16:12, 20 September 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.