Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Ogden


 * 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. I'll create a redirect to California gubernatorial election, 2010. Consensus is that the subject fails inclusion standards and there is no consensus for the "delay" option. It's quite normal to delete articles about candidates in the middle of a campaign. Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Dale Ogden

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a non-office holding candidate, lacks independent coverage other than a couple articles that state that he is a candidate, but provide no other information that would establish notability. Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I came to the article specifically looking for NPOV information about this candidate for California governor.  Granted the article is a bit sparse, but now that the election is a month away I suspect readership as well as editorial interest should increase now.  A major radio talk show in the Los Angeles market just endorsed him too. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  --  N / A  0  00:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  --  N / A  0  00:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to California gubernatorial election, 2010. Just being an ... unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although 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 do not see "significant coverage in reliable sources ". The secondary sources just mention his candidacy or general Libertarian Party positions, not any details about his life.   Will Beback    talk    00:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Or delay There's an ongoing campaign in which the subject it a participant. So far as Wikipedia is concerned a month is little matter. Even if the subject is insignificant, there's no cost in waiting a few weeks to establish that.    Will Beback    talk    13:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Meets notability guidelines for WP:GNG (WP:POLITICIAN is unnecessary). As one of only six candidates listed on the current ballot for Governor of California, he is going to qualify for some notability.This hour-long interview on the NPR radio station KALW-FM adds to significant coverage. And there seems to be plenty of mentions on political discussion websites -- enough to presume more reliable sources. There currently is enough for the tiny bit of information that exists in the article. IMO, with only one month left before the election, this seems poor timing for a notability debate on this guy. — Cactus Writer (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Or Delay -- per the discussion below. — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall where we've ever used the "presumption" of reliable sources in an AFD. Are editors unable to find these sources? Regarding the radio piece, it's described as a two-way debate, not an interview. FWIW, we don't have an article on the other candidate in that debate. As for the timing, the article was created in time for the campaign back in March so deleting it during the campaign is not extraordinary. I don't think there is a rule that suspends the deletion of articles on candidates during a campaign.   Will Beback    talk    03:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Calling it a "debate" or "interview" doesn't enhance nor diminish the actuality of what it is-- we hear a featured discussion between a radio moderator and the person about their candidacy -- i.e, significant coverage. WP:IAR suggests we don't need to recall precedent for every action, nor does every action create precedent -- rather using common sense better serves. In this case, Wikipedia and its readers would have been better served if this discussion had simply waited another 4 weeks, rather than discuss deleting an article at the very moment when someone might want to see it. Given the paucity of information here and its non-controversial nature, there was no pressing need for this. And, frankly, it makes us look a bit foolish. As always, your mileage may vary. — Cactus Writer (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While there's no formal rule to keep candidate bios during campaign season, I can see a practical reason for it. I don't object to delaying this AfD For a month.   Will Beback    talk    13:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. A brief delay would be practical. — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply Delay? I don't remember that being an option in AfD's.  Either a person is notable or he's not. If you think he may become notable (not likely as the media is reporting it as a two person horse race), you can save the text in your sandbox and resurrect it with new material.  I wouldn't count on it though.  --Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, or Redirect to California gubernatorial election, 2010. He's a perennial but never-elected candidate, who has not managed to attract the kind of news coverage necessary to establish himself as notable. Most of the links are simply election results, establishing that he was on the ballot and got a few percent of the vote. it's hard for a third-party candidate to get the kind of coverage that is needed to pass the notability hurdle, and he has not succeeded in doing so. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable perpetual candidate with no chance of election and insignificant levels of coverage. Ray  Talk 19:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I checked the L.A. Times files, and there is nothing. Sadly (for him), GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2010 (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.