Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles H. Dillemuth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. AKRadecki 19:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Charles H. Dillemuth
Biography that does not assert notability outside of a extremely small region. Article reads like an obituary because the primary sources are family contributed newspaper obituaries that do not pass as a reliable source. waffle iron talk 17:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep You said "Biography that does not assert notability outside of a extremely small region.", implying that it DOES assert notability inside a certain region. The subject may not be broadly notable, but if someone in that region wanted information, it would be a good page. I do agree however that the article does need some cleanup. --Nenyedi TalkDeeds@ 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep It was determined in March or April that congressional nominees of either major party automatically met "notability". Mr. Dillemuth's involvement in some fifteen civic activities should also be considered. If this is deleted, then what about Gloria Williams Hearn?
Billy Hathorn 19:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:BIO. Greatest notability is as a failed candidate for Congress. As for "Realtor of the Year" ... --Dhartung | Talk 20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The statement, "It was determined in March or April that congressional nominees of either major party automatically met 'notability'" is patently false. There's never been any such determination, and, in fact, each of the four times the subject has come up on WP:BIO discussion pages, the majority sentiment has been exactly the opposite: that such individuals are not notable automatically. Dillemuth may yet meet WP:N in his own right. (Per Dhartung, this article certainly does not establish him as such, but I also like to try to look into it myself before I make a final decision, and I haven't had time to do that yet.) But if he is, the reason wouldn't be any such automatic determination. Mwelch 20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. OK, after looking for more about him and not finding it, I'll go with delete. I have nothing but respect for DGG's opinion, but even a lot of those who do support congressional major party nominees being considered notable have offered the rationale that their status as major party nominee must mean there are adequate non-trivial reliable sources out there about them. I'm just not sure that I buy that. Today . . . maybe. But a candidate from almost 50 years ago? I'm not convinced. I certainly could be wrong in having my doubts about that. But if I am . . . hey, show me the sources, and I'll certainly change my opinion. Mwelch 16:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. By the way, very good point about Gloria Williams Hearn. I looked and she's no more notable than Dillemuth. Her election loss was just last year and I still don't really see anything out there about her that's both independent and non-trivial. (So once again, I really, really don't buy the "Losing major party congressional candidates should be assumed to be WP:N because there must be plenty of sources out there about them" argument.) I've gone ahead and nominated her article for deletion. Mwelch 23:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. OK, after looking for more about him and not finding it, I'll go with delete. I have nothing but respect for DGG's opinion, but even a lot of those who do support congressional major party nominees being considered notable have offered the rationale that their status as major party nominee must mean there are adequate non-trivial reliable sources out there about them. I'm just not sure that I buy that. Today . . . maybe. But a candidate from almost 50 years ago? I'm not convinced. I certainly could be wrong in having my doubts about that. But if I am . . . hey, show me the sources, and I'll certainly change my opinion. Mwelch 16:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- It was my suggestion in March that congressional nominees of a major party ought to be considered notable, but the consensus at the time was otherwise. I'd still like to see the practice changed, but it is unfortunately has not been. DGG 02:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not appear to meet N or BIO and the article reads like a memorial.--Kubigula (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
