Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Sweetland


 * 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   keep. Shereth 20:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dale Sweetland

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

This "article" reads like a political campaign poster and Dale Sweetland does not appear to be notable currently. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 23:09 2008 June 16 (UTC) 23:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 02:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  02:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no assertion of notability. No verifiable sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep He's the primary-elected nominee for a major office, so he's notable enough. I added the 'cleanup' template. Flatterworld (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete with no prejudice to recreate if elected. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I agree with Brewcrewer. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 19:39 2008 June 17 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the author - I made changes to make this more fact based. Please advise on additional edits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.107.223 (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * — 64.128.107.223 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment I would suggest reviewing some of the points discussed above. Review the notability and verifiablity policies/guidelines (perhaps by using the help function on the left) and addressing updates to the article from there. (Specifically, include some reliable 3rd party sources under the references section, which show the subjects notability).Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep After reviewing the points that were thoughtfully discussed above, I have made considerable changes to this article. I included reliable 3rd party sources -- the Syracuse Post-Standard (a well- established local newspaper within CD-25) and the Washington Post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfis (talk • contribs) 20:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I have changed my opinion to keep per Wilfis. Reference 3 2 establishes enough notability. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 02:19 2008 June 19 (UTC)
 * Comment. Isn't this discussion pretty much over if you're withdrawing your nomination?  Ford MF (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Here, however, I think that having the AfD relisted, receiving a few more Keep opinions, and seeing the article completely re-written in encyclopedic style is enough. I would close this debate myself, but per Non-admin closure I shouldn't as I have expressed an opinion. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 02:11 2008 June 25 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, I don't understand how the trivial mention of his name as a candidate makes him notable enough. He still fails the criteria of WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Existing doesn't equal notability and reference three only confirms his existence. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (Sorry, ref 2, not 3). I think that Dale Sweetland may satisfy the primary notability criterion, "[has received] significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Here, the exact meaning of significant needs to be more broad because the subject is not as well-know as others, and notability is mostly independent of popularity, so in my view, having a reasonably lengthy newspaper article about the subject is fine. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 15:59 2008 June 19 (UTC)
 * That's okay we all make mistakes (lord knows I make quite a few every day). Anyway, I'm sorry to say I still don't see it. Article looks okay and it verifies that he is running for office (but, it is one local newspaper, which doesn't say significant coverage to me). Don't get me wrong if he is elected than maybe he becomes notable but, I'm still not convinced he is notable accoring to the policies and guidelines I spoke of above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nom's redaction is the mistake. He falls way short of meeting the wp:bio notability standard. He, in no way, received signficant coverage, a basic wp:bio requirement. The third ref provided barely mentions him, so we are left with one article in a small-town paper. Besides for falling far short of the significant coverage requirement, the coverage he has received has revolved around one event only, thus violative of wp:blp1e. The only option to have his bio on Wikipedia is if it is included in New York's 25th congressional district election, 2008. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about WP:BLP1E too. Changed to Weak Keep, although now I feel ambivalent. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 03:02 2008 June 20 (UTC)
 * The argument seems to be what 'significant coverage' means. From the Basic Criteria: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] 'Non-significant' (imo) means he was mentioned in some community paper for something incidental (such as, won first prize at the town's barbecue contest) and someone's trying to use that mention as an excuse to create an article. If Joe Blow decides to run as a candidate and his entire campaign consists of creating a website, and he only receives such 'non-significant' news coverage, he's not notable. The nominee of a major political party for national or state office is, by definition, notable. Some are more notable than others, some are indeed famous, but they all meet the Wikipedia 'notable' threshold. An election to choose people to run the government of the United States is not some trivial 'event', such as who won the Demolition Derby or who competed for Miss America, it's actually important. This sort of question is going to arise a lot between now and November, and we need to be clear on the boundaries. Flatterworld (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If the argument is over the meaning of 'significant coverage', then the Washington Post's repeated coverage of Sweetland's campaign should settle it. Chris Cillizza, well-known for his blog, "The Fix", is critical of the Sweetland campaign, to wit "...there doesn't seem to be much energy behind his candidacy. The most exciting thing that has happened in this race of late is that Sweetland's pollster, who also happens to be a professor at Syracuse University, has stepped aside after Maffei made an issue of the pollster's dual roles." But he has ranked it the #1 Congressional race for the second month running. This seems like significant news coverage to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfis (talk • contribs) 10:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, although I would like to see additional reliable sources added for verification. Happyme22 (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as I've long been saying, it is reasonable that major party nominees for national legislatures arenotable, for there are always sources--as in fact there is her. DGG (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Primary elected nominee for major office.  Ford MF (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by the above reasoning nearly every candidate for President of the United States (including some write-in candidates) meet the notability criteria as most are "elected nominees". Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:34, 25 June 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.