Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Gill, M.D.

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Gill, M.D.

An article about a local candidate. The subject doesn't meet the first two bullet points at WP:BIO. Two questions to answer: if he doesn't win, would he still be notable? Would he 10 years from now? --Malber (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. He might meet the second bullet point at WP:BIO. That point requires a local politcal figure, not necessarily an elected one and he has stood before. If he doesn't win then he can be removed in a few years. --MarkS 20:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: At any rate, the "MD" needs to be removed from the title. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Move to David Gill (politician) per MarkS and Zoe -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with MarkS. I also have a hard time calling him a local candidate. Doesn't local imply state or county or city government? He's a candidate for the US House. And the move for sure. -- Superdosh 21:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MarkS. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; newsworthy as a candidate, but not of much encyclopedic value if we consider possible that the article will have to be deleted in few years. The article also seems to show problems of verifiability (how can we verify that he donates blood every 2 months? Who verified that? Sounds like something taken directly from his Web site) that are typical of biographies of non-notable people. - Liberatore(T) 00:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It won't have to be deleted if he gets elected. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
    • So why can't we wait for an article on him until he becomes notable per WP:BIO? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Because as the major challenger for a house seat, he fulfills the second bullet point -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 15:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep see no reason to delete ILovePlankton 02:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. It's vanity. He is a local candidate and is a nobody. Jimboy0 06:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Major party candidate in a one on one congress race. Notable for the coverage of the 2006 congrssional elections. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I created this page because David asked me to and someone not affiliated with the campaign or David continues to edit it. David certainly does meet the second bullet point on WP:BIO which by the way states "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list. Just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." You can't make it more clear than that. Whoever you are, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop this witch hunt. If you have problems with David, he'd be happy to discuss them with you- davidgill@gill2006.com As for the name of the article, there already was an article titled David Gill, so I needed something to distinguish the two and MD is what came to mind. Any particulare reason it should be changed? As for verifing that Doc donates blood, I didn't even know that until he told me himself. If you really want me to, I can have him contact the blood bank and post the record on the website or something.jfrank
  • The article's current title is improperly formatted according to Wikipedia naming conventions, hence my suggestion of David Gill (politician). If this AfD concludes with the article not being deleted, a disambiguation page will likely be created at David Gill to help direct readers to the appropriate article. As for the rest of your comment, I'm pretty sure that writing a candidate bio as a person involved in said candidate's campaign ranks rather highly on the list of bad article ideas. Perhaps you need to back off and allow for more objective users to evaluate the article and decide what is verifiable and what isn't. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that. I'll definitely change the name! And I should clarify that I have no problem with others editing the page. What I do take issue with is the Johnson troll who started this whole thing in the first place. That is to whom my comment was refering. I'd venture to say that I know a lot more about TJ than his people know about David, but you won't see me or any of us editing Tim's page or unneccessarily flagging it. Can anyone tell me when we can expect a ruling on this? jfrank

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.