Talk:Reid Ribble

High School Student
I'm taking AP Gov right now, and one of our assignments was to edit a wikipage of a representative. I am in no way, trying to be a sock-puppet. Thank you for allowing us to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leupark (talk • contribs) 04:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbor832466
Arbor832466 is attempting to have all Republican challengers article deleted. Reid Ribble is ahead of the current incumbent, Steve Kagen, in all polls. Ribble's campaign is rated "Lean Republican" by many independent observers. Kagen is spending tons of campaign money attacking Ribble on the TV because Kagen is behind. Ribble qualifies based upon the national coverage of his campaign. Please see: Republicans putting in more money, Democrats pulling out.--InaMaka (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not trying to have "all republican challengers articles deleted," InaMaka. Trying to clean up non-notable articles. Thanks for your interest. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge?
I've proposed merging this article into United States House of Representatives elections in Wisconsin, 2010 because Mr. Ribble doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. Simply running ahead in polls does not qualify him for his own article, although that information should certainly be included on the elections page. We can discuss here or at Talk:United States House of Representatives elections in Wisconsin, 2010. Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Simply running ahead in polls does not qualify him for his own article"??? Who says??  Dear Arbor832466:  Where did not learn such a thing?  Is this some kind of secret Wikipedia rule?  No, it is not.  I think that the FACT that he is running ahead is a solid reason to keep the article.  Wikipedia is no place for partisanship.  Wikipedia is not censored.  Dear Arbor832466:  Please point out the specific Wikipedia rule that backs up your claim that a politician that is running for Congress and is ahead of a sitting Congressman 25 days before election day does not qualify for an article.  Please provide.--InaMaka (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop the sarcasm and baseless claims. Read Notability. Then read Notability (people), particularly: "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.". Finally, read: Notability (people), particularly: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate." The problem with these 'articles' is that they are still nothing more than a rehash of the campaign material, accompanied by election numbers and 'forecasts' which belong in the election article anyway. Flatterworld (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)