Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John den Dulk

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. - Mailer Diablo 14:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John den Dulk

Tagged db-bio but there is at least some assertion of notability. This is a nominee (not even a candidate yet). Is there an article on this particular race to which the article can be merged? Certainly does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Pictured with an elephant - very droll. Guy 07:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - election candidates generally aren't non-notable unless elected. MER-C 07:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:C&E. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 16:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, Guy, you say "this is a nominee (not even a candidate yet)". But a nominee of a major political party (Republican) is possibly further along in the policial process than a mere "candidate". Did you mean to say "not even an elected official yet"? If so, why are candidates for a national political office (assuming reliable sources about their candidacy can be found) inherently non-notable? In this particular case, I could only find one article in a reliable source to support keeping this article, so I abstain from voting here. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• jersyko, candidates are generally non-notable because (unless they succeed) nobody would want to know about them in 10 years' time, and sources will not remain available to keep the article up-to-date. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or news source. Also, Delete. Vectro 17:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, so candidates in an election to a national office are inherently (generally) non-notable. What if there are multiple reliable sources (say, newspaper articles, which, despite your comment to the contrary, will be available 10 years from now) that provide enough verifiable information such that an article about the candidate can be written? Additionally, what proof do you have that someone will not want to read about an election and its candidates 10 years from now? (Actually, that's probably the best time to study an election, or even later than that, after the historical picture becomes more clear with time) The whole idea is (1) biased in favor of incumbents and possibly violates NPOV and (2) supported only by subjective perception of what is and is not "notable" with passing reference to WP:NOT. The blanket assertion that political candidates are non-notable is, I posit, an untenable position. I don't meant to single out your arguments only, Vectro, as there are other editors who have argued in the same vein. I suppose all I can do is chalk it up as yet another example of the overuse of notability as a ground for deletion. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Not so much biased in favor of incumbents as biased in favor of notable individuals, which happen to include incumbents and some, though not all, of their challengers. I see no violation of NPOV. I just want to add that significant press coverage in reliable, verifiable sources is actually an indication of notability, and is listed as such in WP:BIO, in its discussion of major local political figures. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 18:53, 13 October 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.