Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Denneny

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. --Coredesat 04:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doug Denneny

Doug Denneny (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Taken from the talk page, as I think it sums up the article best: "This person does not appear to meet notability standards because he is merely a declared candidate for Congress and has not actually won that office, and has not otherwise met notability criteria. It's a borderline case, though, which is why I did not immediately nominate this for deletion. Moreover, the article is written like a news release and had issues with neutral points of view. If these issues persist, I will eventually nominate this for deletion." - User:Realkyhick. I don't think he's notable, so I prodded the article and invited Reallyhick to PROD2. This AFD is a result of the prod being disputed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Commander Denneny is one of the few airmen to earn the distinguished flying cross with a V for valor. He is also the most senior fighter pilot to criticize the Iraq War. In addition, he is expected to win his party's nomination in what will prove to be one of the most contested elections of the 08 cycle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmoor (talk • contribs) 19:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• As someone interested in Denneny due all the blog coverage of him, I think this article is perfectly acceptable. How he has grounds for deletion as a top fighter pilot with a noteworthy career and new political presence makes no sense to me. If problems due to 'point of view' are present, lets get them edited and be done with it. Deletion of an article based on one person's opinion over if Denneny is a big enough figure for wikipedia seems ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atom55 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC) _{The aforementioned user has made few edits to Wikipedia, and appears to be a single-purpose account.}

'Comment - Please see WP:N. It's nopt opinion that's the issue here, it's rules and guidelines that have already been set out. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article, I think written by himself, but it is notable. He's all over the web like a rash. Article needs de-poved, sources, category, wikied, the loot. scope_creep 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• This article should stay posted. As mentioned above there has been a lot of coverage of Denneny on the web, so we need an entry. Just keep it neutral and objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msternbe (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Being a candidate for a WP:BIO office by itself does not qualify under WP:BIO. Being a successful commander, even winning a few medals, is also not notability (just look at the Ds for the DFC). There isn't consensus that the Congressional Medal of Honor equals inherent notability, let alone the DFC. In any case, the article is terrible; Wikipedia is not a host for campaign brochures. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion about notability is a worthy one. It is my assertion that he is notable enough, and that this article will provide a resource (outside of campaign website, which in nature is clearly not neutral) for folks who want to know more about important races in 2008. That aside, the article is certainly not a campaign brochure: it states no platforms or positions. If it is written terribly, I urge you to edit it and improve it. That's the point of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmoor (talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, listen carefully here: he doesn't meet the required standards already set out for notability. Asserting that he is notable enough in your opinion is all very well and good, but he doesn't meet the requirements set out at WP:BIO. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete - I'd agree that simply being a declared candidate for office is insufficient notability - especially when oh, so many candidates for political office are using Wikipedia as an advertising medium. I'd also suggest someone with more Wikismarts than me check the accompanying photos to ensure they meet Wikipedia's open-source content guideline (or whatever it is we care about). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The American DFC seems to be 6 levels of precedence down from the Medal of Honor, less prestigious than the British version. The rest of his achievements don't seem to be notable enough either. Clarityfiend 02:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 06:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - This article is repeatedly being vandalised by the people above who have voted to keep it. The AfD template is consistently removed, and no action has been taken to improve the article as suggested. This would lead me to believe that it's either a vanity article, a non-notable article, or both. Yeanold Viskersenn 15:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

comment - or, that it's a cynical attempt to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium instead of caring the slightest bit about the rules around here. If so, does that up this to a speedy delete? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:21, 2 November 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.