Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hahn (Nebraska) (second 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 to keep the article. --  Denelson83  21:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Hahn (Nebraska)

Previously deleted four days ago per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hahn (Nebraska). Article has been rewritten, so it's not technically a repost, and can't be speedied. Campaign ad for candidte for governor, who does not seem to meet WP:BIO. -- Fan-1967 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, this article seems to meet the notability criteria given in WP:C&E. The subject is a major party candidate for the highest position in the State government of Nebraska. He has received considerable Nebraska news coverage, and is an active and visible candidate. The article on the Nebraska gubernatorial election, 2006 exists, and now the notable candidates deserve inclusion in Wikipedia. There exists enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on the candidate which will be proved if the article is allowed to exist for long enough for one to be written. The fact that another person has attempted to fill the hole seems evidence that there is enough interest for the article to exist. This is not an ad for the candidate. I have no affiliation with the candidate. I am simply interested in Nebraska politics and wish there were more information available on Wikipedia about the major players. I plan on flushing out the entries on both the major candidates in this race to help push them beyond stub status. Alienmercy 01:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The first article's author was User:Hahnfornebraska, and the content was copied from the campaign website, so that hardly demonstrated any interest by anyone other than Mr. Hahn's campaign staff. Being a candidate does not, in itself, make someone notable; being elected does. Wikipedia is not a voters' guide. Fan-1967 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I understand being a candidate for office does not necessarily make someone notable, but I truly believe this candidate is. Regardless of what happened before, I am an outside observer who can maintain neutrality. I realize that Wikipedia is not a voter guide, but there are many similar articles on governor, senate, and congressional candidates currently out there that I read out of interest. Most of the currently contested gubernatorial election have articles on the serious challengers. The other major contested statewide race in Nebraska this year is the senate election. The challenger, Pete Ricketts, has a stub which was considered for deletion and was kept. What is the difference between the two? Can any political challengers be considered notable? Alienmercy 01:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Pete Ricketts' article was Proposed for Deletion, a process which anyone can contest and cancel. No one ever pursued a full deletion nomination like this one. No way to know what the result would have been. To answer your question, generally (in my opinion) only challengers who receive significant news coverage outside their state or district would be considered notable. I would also note that, despite being of opposite parties, both Ricketts and Hahn are considered almost guaranteed losers to popular incumbents. Would you still consider either one notable come November 8? Fan-1967 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In fact, I do believe a loser can be notable. My own anecdotal interests are all I have, but I like to read about election history, and the losers contribute to that history. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see any of those other articles delted, but why has this one been singled out for deletion where so many others in similar situations have not? It seems that there was outside opposition to the last deletion of the article, so I fail to see where the consensus for deletion is. If a significant portion of Wikipedia readers are interested in this article's continued existence, what is the problem? No one is forced to read this article, and I think a borderline case ought to be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed. Alienmercy 02:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• This time of year, articles on candidates are coming through AFD all the time (a new one was nominated about ten minutes ago). I'm sure huge numbers get missed as well. This one was not targeted in particular, except insofar as I still had the title on my watch list from the last AFD. A loser can be notable, not necessarily is notable. Will this one be? He'll be a good sport, run a clean, sincere campaign, and concede graciously on election night. Fan-1967 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• While I disagree, I understand all of your arguments except one: what is the distinction you - Fan-1967 - make between Pete Ricketts and David Hahn. You are certainly aware of it as you were the first to cite him as an example in the discussion of the first deletion. Again, let me reiterate, I am not advocating the deletion of the Pete Ricketts article. Alienmercy 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see him as any more deserving of an article than Hahn. I assume he will also concede politely after a sincere campaign. Fan-1967 02:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• And yet, you've chosen this article for deletion but not the other. Why? Alienmercy 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Because the first time, it was a blatant campaign ad, copied from the candidate site, posted by his staff. The second time, it was a reposting of a deleted article. Fan-1967 03:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Except that this one isn't a reposting. I've never even seen the original article. Forgive my naiveness, but is there a way a normal user can view this previous article in question? Alienmercy 03:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Here's the Google cache of it, from August 11. Don't know how often Google refreshes their cache. If you check his campaign site bio, it's pretty much word-for-word. I think the Wikipedia article had been trimmed down by the time that version was cached on 8/11, and originally had that god-awful paragraph about how his "love of the law is matched by his dedication to the democratic principles." Fan-1967 03:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A major party candidate for a governor's seat is notable. Not always; in a state almost completely ruled by a single party with a sacrificial lamb, any old person can get the party's nomination. However, in this case, the guy had other people challenging for the nomination, and looks like he's trying to mount a credible campaign (even if he isn't going to win due to demographics, he's making an earnest try for it, apparently). I would recommend fixing the problems with the article and not arguing that it needs to be deleted because an article was deleted before. Captainktainer * Talk 10:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I did not argue that it should be deleted because it was deleted before. Frankly, I renominated it because my first inclination was to believe that the original author was gaming the system by creating a fresh version. I no longer believe that. I still believe that we should not have articles on people simply because they're candidates. Sooner or later, most of them lose. Fan-1967 15:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Captainktainer, this one looks notable enough for Wikipedia coverage. RFerreira 21:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as Captainktainer and RFerreira, although article needs some work Basement12 23:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please per captainktainer this is a major party candidate Yuckfoo 22:12, 22 August 2006 (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.