Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher J. Dumler


 * 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. joe deckertalk to me 01:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Christopher J. Dumler

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable politicial candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - as the references section shows, the subject has received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent from him which the aforementioned guideline states would assert notability. In addition to those, I found this article and article about specific positions he has taken. The election is still months away, and he will likely continue receiving similar substantial coverage throughout the election. Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Our notability guideline for politicians is the product of consensus and is a useful tool for managing what would otherwise be a deluge of promotional articles to advance political campaigns. This article fails that guideline.  If Letsgocrazytogether disagrees with the guideline, that editor is free to campaign to change the consensus.  In the mean time, let's stick to our established notability guidelines.  And applying that guideline tells us that this article should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The guideline states that "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'." I believe that threshold has been met in this article through the numerous articles in the press (reliable and independent of him) regarding his candidacy that give it "significant" coverage. Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That language in the guideline in intended to deal with people like Ross Perot who was a notable businessman before he was an unsuccessful political candidate. It is not intended, in my opinion, to cover the routine type of local coverage that all newspapers give to every serious candidate for political office.  That is routine, run-of-the-mill coverage that can be generated through press releases issued by any competent campaign manager, and this sort of coverage is insufficient, in my opinion, to establish notability.  If it was, every single competent political candidate would be considered notable, and by that reasoning, Wikipedia should have an article on every single one.  That is contrary to our established practice, and would be a logistical nightmare as we would have to check and edit every one for the neutral point of view.  The vast majority would be written by supporters (usually paid) of those campaigns, and the problems of conflict of interest would be massive.  It isn't workable in my opinion, which is based on my experience dealing with promotional articles about political candidates, and on our established practices. Cullen328 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What amount of coverage would you think would be enough coverage to merit an article? I would have thought over a dozen articles from mainstream, reputable publications would be enough to be considered "significant." Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Something far more than the routine coverage given by local newspapers to every candidate for office who sends out a batch of press releases. Cullen328 (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that significant coverage by local newspapers is insufficient? Why don't you get the guideline updated? Why does it matter "how" the article got published, I thought what matters is that there is substantial press coverage of the individual. Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't consider routine campaign coverage given to every candidate to be "substantial" coverage. It is run-of-the-mill. Cullen328 (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Under your argument, shouldn't articles on every candidate, including congressional candidates, be deleted since most of the coverage they receive is "routine campaign coverage given to every candidate?" For that matter, isn't most coverage of anyone "run-of-the-mill" to their position(s)?  Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Our practice is to cover congressional candidates who have never before been elected to high office and are not otherwise notable in another field, in an article about the specific congressional race that gives balanced, neutral coverage to all the candidates, not just to one. Once a person has been elected to a high office, then they will have a dedicated biographical article on Wikipedia.  However, every case is a battle in Articles for Deletion, and sometimes the consensus is that a widely publicized congressional candidate is notable, especially if the specific race has received in depth coverage nationally, and not just in the local district. Cullen328 (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If that is all the case, then why doesn't the guideline say so? I think most people would consider numerous articles in news sources dedicated specifically to the subject to be "significant" coverage. Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the entire guideline, rather than reading just the part that allows you to characterize run-of-the-mill coverage as "significant". Cullen328 (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And while your at it, please also read our policy statement Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Please note that the editor Letsgocrazytogether is the main author of this article and is a new single purpose account whose only contributions are related to this article and the closely related Cynthia Neff. Cullen328 (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * delete Fails WP:Politician and also runs afoul of WP:BLP1E as the candidate is not notable outside of this very local election. Furthermore, only the last three sources in the article should really be considered as RS for notability purposes and do not demonstrate any enduring notability.  Sailsbystars (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cullen328; fails WP:Politician.  Also user:letsgocrazytogether has been BLOCKED as a sockpuppet .  --  Kenatipo    speak! 18:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete candidate fails WP:POLITICIAN. We can revisit should he prevail. – Lionel (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sailsbystars's argument and because the sources don't constitute substantial coverage of the subject. Hekerui (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2011 (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.