Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William J. McCamley
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 was Delete Not notable , as consensus indicates, umless elected. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] William J. McCamley
He may be a notable politician in his district, but this article is clearly a blatant political advertisement. Unless someone familiar with this person comes in soon and rewrites this from a neutral point of view, I think this article should be deleted. Dougie WII (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
What in this article is advertising? This article is presenting facts on a Congressional Candidate to give voters in this district additional information on a candidate. Nothing state in the article is untrue and I have added external links and references that show that. I am hopeful that by me starting this article, others familiar with this gentleman will come forward and to continue to add to it. This article is far from "blatant political advertisement" otherwise I would have just put in big bold letters all over the page "ELECT MR X FOR CONGRESS, DONATE HIM SOME MONEY, HE PROMISES RAINBOWS AND SUNSHINE!!" Chadbon (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's all "Accomplishments" and "Praise" etc., where are the failures and criticism? I'm sure he's had some during his political life. -- Dougie WII (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
My friend, I'm using the Google here. When I find this information, it will be added. Again, I am hoping by starting this entry it will bring other people that are familiar with the candidate to edit and add to the entry. Isn't that what this is all about? Chadbon (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep What about the On April 4, 2007, Bill McCamley announced he would challenge Republican Rep . It is blatant advertising, although the article may have some merit, if the politician is important enough for an article. I any sense, the article needs rewritten to remove the puff, and present an more balanced article. scope_creep (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Please follow the wikipedia rules when making comments. scope_creep (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep He is an elected official in a smaller metropolitan area, BUT this piece, as written, is little more than a campaign flyer. WP shouldn't be a mirror site for every Congressional campaign, let MySpace and Facebook do that. Jacksinterweb (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Extremely Weak Keep - The page, as it stands, is a blatant advertisement. I only keep because the article writer states the intent to add criticism.--WaltCip (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete A county commissioner? Not a statewide officeholder, no national exposure, unbalanced article, no news coverage. Per WP:CRYSTAL, add the page when the candidate becomes noteworthy, not as a way to try to make the candidate noteworthy. --- tqbf 18:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, below WP:BIO standards, and essentially spam. --Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I've removed the redundant Background section and the POV Accomplishments section. GlassCobra 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. If he gets elected, then he qualifies for an article, not before. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete A county commissioner can be notable if he or she has done notable things. There really doesn't appear to be anything of the sort in the article. A campaign for Congress could add notability, but this person has not qualified for a ballot or won a party primary. Lots of people declare themselves to be candidates who drop out before a party endorsement has even taken place. Montco (talk) 03:50, 20 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.
