Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Hughes (attorney)


 * 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.  Sandstein  13:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Hughes (attorney)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails our notability guideline for politicians; did not hold office or even make it through the primary; coverage seems to be rudimentary for candidates. Nat Gertler (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, have to say I agree with here, no other noteworthy positions of note prior to campaign. Sagecandor (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG due to the notable and historic nature of campaign - first time in 30 years the incumbent (a very senior and notable U.S. congressman) had faced a serious contender as local media noted he had never before even run a TV ad; challenger was noted in RS as spending six-times more per vote than incumbent. GF notifying other recent editors on the article including User:LindsayH, User:DocumentError, User:7&6=thirteenBlueSalix (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Being the first person in any length of time to challenge an incumbent in a primary, but not win the primary, is neither encyclopedic nor noteworthy in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This person clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unsuccessful Congressional primary candidate who received only 6% of the vote. In addition, the article in its current form pushes a negative POV about this person and is pretty much a hit piece.  Cullen328   Let's discuss it  06:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely fails POLITICIAN, however, it passes on the basis of WP:BASIC. The nature of the campaign makes it historic. BlueSalix (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Which sources are you claiming as in-depth coverage? Of the live links on the page, only this West Seattle Herald piece seems to have length on him, and that's largely quotes pulled from a press release, making it churnalism in a local weekly. The other pieces seem to max at five short paragraphs related to him. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * These -
 * "Andrew Hughes Stunt Sinks to a Whole New Level" The Stranger
 * "Whippersnapper [Hughes] Accuses Jim McDermott of Telling Lies About Him" The Stranger
 * "Hughes Spends Over 6 Times More Per Vote Than McDermott" The Stranger
 * "Andrew Hughes Can Bicycle and Kayak. But, Can He Beat Jim McDermott?" The Stranger
 * "The New Kid: Andrew Hughes for the 7th Congressional District" Capitol Hill Times
 * "Andrew Hughes Bid to Unseat Jim McDermott Fizzles Fast" Seattle Times
 * "Andrew Hughes challenges Congressman Jim McDermott; "Put your assets into blind trust"" West Seattle Herald
 * "Hughes expects to be McDermott’s November opponent" Everett Herald
 * - and the rest I'm too lazy to copy/paste into the AfD. (Note that not all of these still appear in the article as a lot of content was culled within the last couple hours, apparently, in preparation for the AfD.) BlueSalix (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, zero sources were culled in preparation for the AFD. You can check my edits.
 * None of the Stranger/Slog pieces look in-depth, they're all too brief. The Seattle Times piece has just two sentences on Hughes. The Herald piece, as I noted above, is largely made up of press-release quotes, and is thus churnalism in a very local source. The Capitol Hill Times piece has some good length, but is a neighborhood weekly (that's Capitol Hill (Seattle), not a DC politics paper), so that doesn't say much about general notability. The Everett Herald piece is just ten sentences, and again a local outlet. --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's obvious we disagree about the minimum word count a source needs to hit for a BLP. I don't think any of these are "brief." They provide substantive (i.e. not passing mention) coverage, are RS, and contextualize the event for what it is - an historic election campaign. BlueSalix (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not an article on an election campaign. There might be an argument for there being an article on the election campaign... but if "incumbent who is not used to having a challenger has an inexperienced challenger who doesn't do very well" is to be historic, I'd expect to see sources discussing it well after the case. That the sources peter out before the general election suggest a lack of historicity. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) amended Nat Gertler (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect - Candidate ran in an election, lost, and hasn't done anything of note since. I don't see that there's a biography here. It would seem that this is a great candidate for a merge/redirect - anything about the election could be merged into the appropriate Congressional district election article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. A non-winning candidate for office does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate; if you cannot show and credibly source that he was already eligible for an article for some reason independent of his candidacy itself, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to claim notability because election. But there's no strong claim of notability here for anything besides the campaign itself. And since he didn't even make it onto the general election ballot, but merely ran and lost in a primary, there's not much substantive need to maintain a redirect here either. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. His coverage is essentially limited to failed campaigns. I don't see him passing GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing comes even close to making him notable. People who loose primary elections are never notable for that fact, and he has no other claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - he came third place in an election, we don't have an article for the person who came SECOND in the election, no other notability established. Shritwod (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as the creator of this article I genuinely believe the subject passes BLP, however, I also see the validity of the "delete" arguments advanced. &#32;DocumentError (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2016 (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.