Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Sebring (2nd nomination)

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sebring

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

Sebring is now in his fourth campaign for Congress, yet there is almost no coverage of him in reliable sources. Of the 9 references listed on his page at the moment, 3 are links to lists of candidates or election results; one is to the Leadership Institute PAC, which isn't a reliable source; one is to the blog straightforwardwisconsin, which is also not a reliable source; one is behind a paywall; and the final three offer routine coverage - one for each of his last three runs. He fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG as an unelected candidate who has received nothing more than the most routine of coverage - 4 sources for his 4 campaigns over the last six years.

Although the article has already been nominated for deletion and was closed as "keep", the arguments used in favour of keeping the page were faulty. For example, "I'm sure that more reliable sources exist" (they don't) and "Anyone notable enough to by a major party candidate in a two-party system for a national office such as a seat in the US House of Representatives) should be consider suitable for an article". WP:POLOUTCOMES states that "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted". Tiller54 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tiller54 (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Tiller54 (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with nominator. I tried to do some work on this article in the past, but did not find any "notable" coverage, as nominator describes. *Seen a Mike * 00:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:NPOL, unelected candidates for office do not get an automatic presumption of notability on Wikipedia just for being candidates. Rather, with rare exceptions for a candidate who busts way outside of the WP:ROUTINE level of local media coverage that is expected for all candidates in an election (Christine O'Donnell being the canonical example that I always point to of how this is possible), a candidate who was not already notable enough to pass a different inclusion standard before he became a candidate does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election — and nothing written or sourced here demonstrates that he's passed the high bar necessary to qualify for the exception. As written, this is effectively just a campaign brochure — which is exactly the kind of content that our notability standards for politicians, as well as policies like WP:NOTADVERTISING, are designed to weed out of Wikipedia. He'll qualify for an article in November if he wins the seat, certainly, but as of right now it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not-notable candidate with trivial coverage. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2014 (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.