Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hahn (Nebraska)

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. Kimchi.sg 06:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Hahn (Nebraska)

At least the primary author of this page (Hahnfornebraska (talk · contribs)) is honest about who they are. This is the guy's campaign brochure, pretty much based on his website. He's running for governor, but seems otherwise to be an unnoteable successful businessman. Recreate if he's elected. Fan-1967 19:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Being a gubernatorial candidate for one of the two major parties is notable in and of itself. If he were running for school board, or if he were running under a third party with no chance of being elected, then the article would be worthy of deletion. --dtony 20:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• As opposed to running under a second party with no chance of being elected? -- Fan-1967 21:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Deciding that a candidate has "no" chance of winning with a 34% polling number is purely a judgment call. If the candidate were polling under 10%, perhaps that would be an argument against notability. JFTR, I am not from Nebraska, have never even heard of the guy, and have little to no interest who wins this race. --dtony 20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• And actually, it's irrelevant. The simple fact is that there are lots of candidates, most of whom lose. Governors are notable. People who want to be aren't. Wikipedia is not a voter's guide, and especially we're not a free webhost to reprint this guy's website word-for-word, which is exactly what the content of this article is. Fan-1967 20:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• And as a point of Wikipedia policy, please read WP:N, especially the "Obscure content isn't harmful" section and explain how this article does not fit into that policy. --dtony 04:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, it's not a policy. It's an argument that some have used against requiring notability, and one of the weaker ones. To my mind, the main problem is clutter. Do you know how many campaign ads we've got left, articles created by supporters of losers in previous elections? Neither do I. They're like those road signs that everyone volunteers to put up during the campaign, and no one volunteers to take down after the election. The obvious solution is to create articles after they're elected. Fan-1967 04:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. WP:NOT wiki is not a soapbox. Subject is a no-hoper sacrificial lamb to the Rupublicans in Nebraska. However, his claim of having saved "85 percent of the family farms and ranches" could be a saving grace, if only someone could elaborate. Ohconfucius 02:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it's not based on the party, because the same poll says the Republican is a goner for the Senate. Iin both races there's a popular incumbent, and the challenger is toast. Fan-1967 02:39, 8 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.