Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Duck


 * 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 Delete. --Tito xd (?!?) 06:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Duck
Apparent vanity, non-notable bio. Google shows some references to the subject (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Andrew+Duck%22) but mostly from his own campaign & supporters and Andrew "Duck" McDonald comes as high up the rankings as the subject, as do various other Andrew Ducks. This really does not look notable. The quotes are also POV. What does the panel think? Notable by virtue of running for office perhaps? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

(the following unsigned comments added by author, anonymous user:65.150.252.45): He has been covered extensively in The Frederick News-Post [www.fredericknewspost.com]. He has a national interview lined up on Air America Radio, see link in Exteneral Links. His opponent, incumbent Roscoe Bartlett, has a Wiki page. Other such challengers have Wiki pages, see Paul Babbitt.

This is notable because he is one of only a half-dozen Iraq War Veterans running for public office in America. See: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/us_house/articles/2005/10/05/6_iraq_war_veterans_running_for_congress/

Another national article in Mother Jones magazine discussing Andrew Duck: http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2005/10/iraq_vets_running_for_congress.html
 * Comment: there hasn't even been a primary right? So this guy may be one of several Democrats running for the office. If that's the case, I'd say delete until he at least wins the primary, if not until he wins the election. -- Kjkolb 20:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: In regards to the primary line of argument, I'd point everyone to Paul Hackett. Wikipedia has a very long profile on Mr. Hackett even though he's never been elected. He lost a Congressional race and is now running for the U.S. Senate in a Democratic primary. His claim to fame is that he's an Iraq War Veteran running for political office.

I also reference again Paul Babbitt. Mr. Babbitt lost his congressional election over a year ago, yet his profile still remains on Wikipedia.

Also, most comparable to Andrew Duck is David Ashe. Wiki has not flagged Mr. Ashe's entry for deletion even though his credentials are identical to Mr. Duck's. Both are Iraq War Veterans running for Congress.

I think that the Andrew Duck entry must be judged on its merits - and the merit here is that he's one of a very select group of Iraq War Veterans running for political office. That's good enough for Wiki to keep Paul Hackett's and David Ashe's profiles, it should be good enough for Andrew Duck.


 * Note: Roscoe Bartlett has an article per WP:BIO as a serving member of a national legislature. Most of the others named have now been AfDd (by me) for exactly the same reason.  One caveat: if someone wants to discuss the issue of war veterans running for political office in time of war (which might well have some interesting parallels with Vietnam) then brief summaries of these guys might form part of that discussion.  Substantial media coverage does not make for significance - every candidate in every election goes out to garner as much media coverage as possible, and in any case that's just a version of the ad populum fallacy.  - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment:I believe that this page should stay, simply because it's docutmenting a series of current events in the realm of American politics during a very volatile year. I think the page should be deleted if this guy doesn't get elected, in which case it would certainly be just a vanity page about a guy with an opinion. But it seems like the historical signifigance (the fact that he's an Iraq war veteran) of his political race, gives it the necessary stuff to remain a wiki. Especially if the wiki is updated with unslanted factual stuff about the race that he's in, and not just personal bio trivia. As the race develops, so should this page, and it's possible that others might have some very good stuff to post here, but it's too soon to tell. Let's keep an eye on it, but in the mean time I would not delete it.

-frequent wiki reader
 * Relisting. - Mailer Diablo 08:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: I still say delete. The man has not, as yet, established a single notable achievement (he's not even on the ticket yet, as per above comments).  The existence of other people not yet flagged for AfD is not an argument for keeping this one (that's the "two wrongs" logical fallacy). - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 09:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

-frequent wiki reader
 * Delete As per Just zis Guy, as per KJKolb. Marcus22 10:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The "Iraq war veterans running for office" angle might be worthy of an inclusive article in which Mr. Duck is mentioned. I don't think it's worthy of including an article on every possible candidate with military experience in the Gulf region.  →  Ξxtreme Unction { yak yak yak ł blah blah blah } 12:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Major publications mention him. People might come to wikipedia for more information. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hipocrite. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not won the primary yet? In that case I retract my keep vote, and abstain. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Paul Hackett achieved front page attention on major newspapers. Apparently this candidate has yet to win his own party's nomination. Durova 20:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a voter's guide. He hasn't even won the primary yet. -- Kjkolb 20:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Just zis Guy and Extreme Unction. Merely getting his name in an article or two isn't quite enough for me; I'd want to see a couple of articles about him before I'd call him notable. --William Pietri 21:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hipocrite's inadvertent point, viz WP is not a repository of indiscriminate information for webcrawlers. Dottore So 00:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Who are you to decide the significance of other people's interests? "WP is not a repository of indiscriminate information..." I think there might be a bit of confusion in regards to the difference between assessment and assumption here. This entry was obviously not created by Andrew Duck. It's more likely the effort of an individual documenting their own local history as it's happening. Assuming the intention of this entry's creator is not what this forum is for. It's for assessing the merit of the entry itself. And Indiscriminate? There are tens of thousands of entries that are utterly useless, if not indiscriminate. Half of WP would have to be deleted if we followed that line of logic. For an interested party this page could be immensely significant. So let's lay off the elitist banter. This isn't about you and me. This is a notable entry. (I'm so glad that I stumbled onto this nonsense. Now I know what to look forward to if I ever want to create an entry. Jeez.)
 * I think the general point being made is that the number of interested parties, at this point in time, is likely to be negligible. Is that not assessing the merit of the entry itself? On your second point, any article you find "utterly useless" you can nominate for deletion. If the consensus of opinion is that you are right, those "utterly useless" entries will also be deleted. Seems a fair process to me! Marcus22 10:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as a blatant advertisement (which is fixable) about a minor unsuccessful candidate (which is not). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable candidate. Xoloz 16:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per JzG and EU. RasputinAXP   T    C  19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Xoloz. *drew 01:13, 16 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.