Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Alldredge


 * 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 except signature updates.  

The result was delete. - Philippe &#124; Talk 02:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bill Alldredge

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is rather funny, and I would like for it to survive, but I can't seem to find any information on it that would justify WP:Bio inclusion in Wikipedia other than blogs & such. Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC) *Comment He's a cutie, and I love the hat. As much as I'd LOVE to see his pretty face continue to grace the pages of Wikipedia, I'm affraid I just can't find a reason to justify it. Dgf32 (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wacky underdog campaigns may be WP:INTERESTING, but they are not inherently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 05:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wish I could vote otherwise on this too. Someone go find some notable external links quick! Alberon (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment; I had closed this AfD as a delete, but then noticed that the AfD tag had been removed from the article already on the 26th of February (not by any of the above people). Since this would make the AfD nearly invisible for those people interested in the article, this may have resulted in an unfair result (though I doubt it, in all fairness). I would suggest leaving this AfD open for another four or five days, just to play it safe. Fram (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While the article does need improvement, citations of newspaper articles have been added. They are reliable third party sources that establish the notability of the subject. Dgf32 (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that the two newspaper articles are from the same paper and the same columnist. If some alternate source can be cited in addition, I'd be willing to reverse my delete nomination. What has been presented is not enough to show more than 5 minutes of fame-- much less fame than most failed mayorial candidates usually generate--many of whom are not regarded as notable enough for an encyclopedia article themselves.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Funny as it may be, there's no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. He is not a major political figure, but a failed candidate (non-notable per WP:BIO lacking other criteria.) He is not an ambassador. If this person's notability should gain legs beyond one columnist in two editorials in one paper in a single month, he may achieve notability. Not there yet. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Additional sources added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.202.85 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Those sources don't seem to indicate that the individual is notable by Wikipedia's definitions. Note that "a short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note You have only produced two sources by the same author, Greg Campbell; the two more recent articles are near identical mirrors of the previous two, also by the same author. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

per Fram.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 01:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Interesting but trivial. Wiki can't have a site for everybody who has ever run for office and lost.  Renee (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If anyone wants to consider it an A7 I wouldn't object, for I do not find the claims to notability  plausible.DGG (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Heehee, this is a funny article, but the local newspaper coverage doesn't qualify him for notability. Nyttend (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs a huge overhaul, but it appears this actually meets notability standards. I'll do some cleaning up.  нмŵוτн τ  05:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I cleaned up the article.  нмŵוτн τ  05:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job on the clean-up, but I wonder where you see that he meets WP:BIO. He doesn't meet the criteria set out at BIO. Failed political candidates may receive press coverage—and probably will—but are not notable for their candidacy. In terms of other criteria, the sourcing still all refers back to a single author, which would in my opinion not seem to meet the "multiple independent sources" test. Can you be more specific about how you feel it meets notability standards? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I was thinking WP:BIO basic criteria. I didn't look at the politician criteria. Your point is correct. I'll strike out my "keep" comment.  нмŵוτн τ  18:05, 9 March 2008 (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.