Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Hackett

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 of the debate was Keep (17/3 approx) Shreshth91 12:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Hackett

Minor politician, failed election in one congressional district, campaigning to be nominated for another election. Not elected to any major office per WP:BIO and the encyclopaedic content of the article is covered at Ohio Second Congressional District Election, 2005 in a much more balanced and comprehensive fashion. This reads like a fan page. There seems to be scope for an article on former members of the military running for political office, as an interesting facet of the current Gulf War debate in the US, but that's about it. This article is nearly twice the length of the one on Isaac Newton even though the guy's political career has essentially not progressed beyond a city council. And the list of references makes it look like original research. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. There are 435 congressional districts within the United States. These seats come up for re-election every two years. Having a seperate article for every candidate who runs in each of these 435 districts every two years will provide us with a raft of articles of people who are notable solely for their failure to win a Congressional election. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 13:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Durova below. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 11:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looking at Google gives a whopping 313,000 hits. It appears that Hackett and the election has received major national press attention. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. Possible senate candidate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Not possible Senate candidate, he is a candidate. He already announced. PedanticallySpeaking 17:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very well-known person. He's not typical of the losers in 435 districts, because he had an impact even in losing (receiving much public attention for making a close race in a strongly Republican district). He was featured on a recent CNN show about public attitudes toward the war. The article is less than half again as long as Isaac Newton, but even Britney Spears is longer than Isaac Newton, reflecting Wikipedia's bias toward the recent. JamesMLane 15:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I was counting the reference lists. So we need two articles on this single election, do we, one vainglorious one loaded with POV and one comprehensive one? I'd say it's time for a "gulf war vets running for office" article and merge them all. Massive media coverage today does not equate to lasting notability. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 18:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, running and losing isn't a very strong case for notability... I'd be willing to support a keep if he actually runs for Senate, but right now that is in the future, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No real opinion on keep/delete right now, but article badly needs editing.--Isotope23 17:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, although losing a congressional race normally isn't notable, achieving front page coverage on The New York Times, The Washington Post, and USA Today makes this an exception. The article itself is up to Wikipedia standards. Durova 20:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - first Gulf War II combat vet to run for office in the U.S. federal gov't. Ergo, notable. BD2412 T 20:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, failed or potential political candidates are rarely notable. Serious U.S. presidential candidates usually are, but not many others. -- Kjkolb 20:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep While I agree that failed candidates are rarely notable, 300,000 Google hits show that this guy is the exception that proves the rule. 373 Google News hits show that the interest is current and continuing with national and international media represented see [1]. Capitalistroadster 22:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. the above point about the candidate's media presence is interesting, but he is still a losing candidate. Dottore So 00:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Hall Monitor 00:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is insane. Hackett's performance in the special election has been one of the biggest political stories of the year in the U.S., or at least in Ohio. Lawmakers are more important than the zillions of musicians, actors and athletes we have on WP, and therefore, major-party candidates for important legislative positions are notable as well. Should we delete Martin Scorsese because he's never won an Oscar? -- Mwalcoff 04:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep due to national prominence. And because it's just a good article. NatusRoma 04:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Major political figure. This VfD nomination clearly has no merit. —Seselwa 06:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Paul Hackett is going to be a major man that will change the course of the U.S. November 11, 2005
  • Strong keep Paul Hackett is now running for the Senate and this page will serve as a strong source of information for those who live in Ohio, both for and against his candidacy.
  • Strong keep Paul Hackett is not your typical failed political candidate. Paul Hackett made history as the first Iraq War veteran to run for Congress. His near defeat, in a district extremely inhospitable to his own party, proves his crossover appeal and signals his importance in Ohio and national politics. Currently Hackett leads incumbent Senator Mike DeWine in two consecutive polls for the 2006 US Senate race; a race Hackett has recently declared his candidacy for. Paul Hackett is rising star in the Democratic party and the mere consideration of deletion of this article is ridiculous.
  • Strong keep He is very notable for his upcoming Senate run, as well as the coverage of his unexpectedly narrow defeat. --Benna 07:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I suspect the nomination was politically motivated. Laszlo Panaflex 07:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment ∾ The original nominator was born and raised in the UK, and continues to live there. I remain confident that his motivation for nominating this article for deletion has nothing to do with a desire to affect the outcome of an election which will never materially affect the quality of his life. Honestly, folks, can we do away with the conspiratorial speculation and the incredulous hyperbole, and stop taking it personally when a page you think doesn't deserve deletion is nominated for AfD? The default status for any page is "Keep". If there is consensus that the article should be deleted, then that's the community consensus. If there isn't a consensus, or, as in this case, the consensus is "keep," then the worst that happens to the article is that it spends 5 days or so with an AfD banner at the top of it. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 11:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As the author of the page, I of course vote Keep. PedanticallySpeaking 17:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I didn't realize the Wikipedia servers were running out of room. Think of the poor Wikipedia salesman, going door to door selling encyclopedias, having to lug around all that extra data. Seriously, folks, there are freakin' book-length articles summarizing plot lines from Star Trek on here. If you are ready to delete those (and countless other fluff), then we can talk about deleting Paul Hackett's entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidNYC (talk • contribs) 21:49, November 14, 2005
    • Bogus argument. The existence of articles which may warrant deletion does not justify the existence of other articles which may warrant deletion. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah}10:26, 15 November 2005 (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.