Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hammons (2nd nomination)


 * 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   redirect to Unity Party of America and delete history per CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Bill Hammons
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable politician. Recreation of a deleted page which went through AFD. Never held an "international, national or sub-national office." Only three news sources in the article can be found, and Bill is the subject of only one of those, the other two have him as a passing mention. The article where he is the subject is a local news report on his local election campaign, doesn't satisfy significant press coverage. The rest of the available sources are primary sources not reliable sources Coffeepusher (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coffeepusher (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject is Chairman of a national American political party with members in 33 states listed on its website. The Unity Party was officially recognized by the State of Colorado as a direct result of subject's run for Congress.  Both party and party's chairman are significant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houston1969 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)  — Houston1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * none of those credentials satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians. Would you be able to demonstrate that A) he has held a international, national, or local office, or B) that he is a major local political figure WHO HAS ALSO received SIGNIFICANT press coverage.  As of now I do not believe that he fills these qualifications.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * it is also worth noting that the unity party has had one chairman since it's conception, that being him, the founder of the party. this makes the position significantly less notable.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that article has been cleaned up in terms of links.


 * Subject of course hasn't held public office. The question is definition of "significant" coverage ... subject has appeared on TV in same segment as politician who is now Governor of Colorado, and has been mentioned in media beyond Colorado.  At the end of the day, this is the leader of a party with a reach well beyond one state, and this has to be taken into consideration.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houston1969 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)  — Houston1969 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wikipedia's notability guidelines states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" these sources need to be independent of the subject.  As of now I only see one local source that qualifies and is strictly about his defunct campaign, the "out of state" sources you mention have a one line reference to him and a quote in a "guy on the street" style.  Not enough sources to establish notabilityCoffeepusher (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, notability has already been established. This article has been on Wikipedia for years. A past campaign is still a campaign, and a mention in the Denver Post outside a political context certainly says something.

If news websites don't properly maintain their archives, that's irrelevant to the fact that the subject remains notable. Once notable, always notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houston1969 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * actually you recreated the article after it was already deleted, and based on the sources and information you put in that first edit there is a very probable conflict of interest. You defiantly work for the Unity party in Boulder, Co. (you logged out for some of your edits giving us your IP adress) in close proximity to Bill, or you are Bill.  Now you are correct that once someone is notable, they will always be notable...except Bill has not ever been notable.  There is also no time limit on AFD's, and time on wikipedia is irrelevant.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (as previous nominator) The article does not demonstrate that the subject has gained sufficient notability since the last debate. Still fails WP:POLITICIAN.  A whole lot of sources amount to supporting single facts; good for referencing the article, but not good for passing WP:GNG.  A bunch of the rest are primary; leaving us with just one local news bio piece, which isn't enough.
 * As for nominating after years, I say the shoe is on the other foot. If, after several years, the article still doesn't show reliable sources sufficient to pass GNG, it never will. gnfnrf (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Unity Party of America until he establishes his own seperate notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:31, 3 April 2012 (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.