Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hildebrand


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

David Hildebrand

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Draft:David Hildebrand (politician) already declined at AfC by myself and. Draft creator unhappy with the decision based on the conversation on my talk page. Bottom line is the subject of the article is only a candidate and is already listed on the election page in Wikipedia. Unless he wins or can be found to be notable for something else, he fails WP:BIO. CNMall41 (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 06:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 06:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Subject fails WP:NPOL and I'm not seeing enough for WP:GNG. Ahead of an election nine months from now, this looks like a promotional effort. I think WP:BLP1E applies, even if there was more coverage about his quixotic run. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 06:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. --

The subject of the article meets Number 3 of WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or 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". He has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.

As stated in WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Here, the subject has been covered in multiple printed newspapers and online sources, some of which are cited in the article. Coverage is ongoing, becoming more significant daily.

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Here, the sources cited are major news sources, online blogs, and video news programs. There are plenty of them secondary sources, ranging in reliability.

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Here, though the article is just a stub. But that does not mean it is not notable. There is more content to be written and more sources available.

I don't know what standards you're using, but the wikipedia standards clearly show you are incorrect in your judgment, and I ask you to fix yourself.

Jon Ivy (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. No candidate in any election ever fails to be the subject of some coverage in the context of the election campaign itself — so that falls under run of the mill, and is not coverage that can be used to make a candidate pass GNG just because some media coverage exists. If the mere existence of campaign-specific coverage were enough in and of itself to get over GNG, then every candidate in any election would always get over GNG. But our job is to maintain articles about holders of office, not everybody who ever just ran for one — we have an established consensus that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a repository of campaign brochures for unelected candidates. To make a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article, you must show one of three things: (1) he's the winner of the Senate election in November, (2) he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before he became a candidate, or (3) his candidacy is getting so much more coverage than most other candidacies are also getting that you could credibly claim his candidacy had already made him nationally famous (the Christine O'Donnell exception.) Yes, if he actually manages to defeat Dianne Feinstein in the primary, then in all likelihood the coverage of him will expand enough to pass that last condition — but simply being able to show four pieces of campaign-related coverage is not evidence that a candidate has already cleared our notability standards, because every candidate in any election could always show four pieces of campaign-related coverage, and he's also not a special case just because he might defeat Dianne Feinstein in a primary that hasn't happened yet, because WP:CRYSTAL also applies. If you could show something like Christine O'Donnell's 168 footnoted references, then his candidacy could be considered a special case — but just four doesn't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, candidates can be covered in Wikipedia if they are candidate, but that doesn't mean they qualify for their own page. In this case, he is already listed as a candidate in the United States Senate election in California, 2018 page. However, he would not qualify for his own page based on the reasons given above by Bearcat. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response. I do say that it seems that your established consensus seems to be waning: Danny_Tarkanian Scott Ashjian John Chachas Wayne_Allyn_Root Larry_Elder Ron Unz... I could spend all day finding articles about people who are only on wikipedia because of their runs for office, and unlike with our subject here, written about mainly by themselves. You seem to be doing a few things:
 * 1) Treating all races the same, comparing a race for city council, or representative from Delaware, in the same context as a U.S. Senate race in California.
 * Even if you come to the same conclusion, you are making an error if you're not using different criteria for one office from the other.
 * 2) Treating sources such as Fox News as more reliable than the Sacramento Bee.
 * Just look at the 168 footnotes you're citing for Christine O'Donnell. If you're valuing quantity over quality, there are several dozen blogposts and videos featuring our subject here I could include.
 * 3) Pronouncing a rule of general applicability but only applying it in select cases.
 * Just because "every" candidate will get some news coverage, does not mean that the news coverage they get should be discounted. If the general rule is that media coverage is a sign of notability, then media coverage is a sign of notability. Applying it differently to one category of people over another is ridiculous. All serial killers will get some media coverage, would you say that their media coverage doesn't count? Rather, the rule should be to judge the reliability of the sources and how much they directly are reporting on the subject - no discount should be given to campaign coverage and the reporting should not be analyzed differently. AND, since your supposed *consensus* to the contrary is being arbitrarily applied depending on the editor and the moment, I don't think it's a rule with much staying power.
 * Again, thanks for your response. All editors should be required to give the standard at which they are judging deletion. Jon Ivy (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are faulty and I just want you to understand that this isn't a rigged competition. First, please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Pointing to other deficient articles isn't a valid argument; it would result in a race to the bottom with our content getting worse due to declining standards. Second, it appears the failed candidates you listed pass WP:GNG. This subject does not. Per WP:NPOL, Wikipedia does not have different criteria for different elections. This is a global encyclopedia and it would be impossible to suss those gradations out. Thirdly, per WP:RS, we don't have a sliding rule on sources. Consensus determines if a source is usable and after that, it's a numbers game. WP:SPS disallows blogs. Many editors discount coverage from local news sources, especially where the subjects are of purely local interest and are otherwise run of the mill. I think you also need to read WP:BIO1E. The consensus determines if a person known for one particular event is otherwise a low-profile individual. Sometimes the crowd here fawns over a two-minute celebrity because of large volumes of coverage. We don't want to otherwise try to write biographies of an also-ran based upon slim coverage. I understand you're a very inexperienced editor and I know some people take deletion personally. Rather than harbor bitterness over this, please accept that the notability criteria are something you need to edit inside. None of us likely have animus against Hildebrand; there's just not enough source material for us to feel this encyclopedia should discuss him in a standalone manner. You can always add more content to the article about this race. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're being capricious and insisting that you're using standards at the same time. You should pick one and stick with it. I could understand if you wanted to say, "Someone running for President and someone running for postal carrier have the same notability from my personal perspective." But if you're going to cite rules, standards, and guides, you should at least find one that backs up what you're saying. I can point to the standards that seem to exist based on the articles that are deleted vs those that are not, and I can point to all of the language written in the WP:N guidance. Ultimately, wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you and this brigade wish to do one thing, there is nothing I can do to stop you. I can point to WP:N guidelines which clearly state that there is a presumption of notability when a subject receives significant coverage from reliable sources, but you are free to ignore those "rules" - after all, they are a reflection of consensus, not a mandate. But I implore you to develop intelligent standards and apply them evenly. If this encyclopedia is to contain information about political races, as it does, then this brigade of censorship is not healthy and does not improve the experience for readers or editors. I've been reading and contributing to wikipedia for 15 years. It is definitely a new-found consensus to attack articles like this simply because the subject is a candidate for an office - handicapping the media coverage, simply because the subject is a political candidate, and making up a new set of rules that say that media coverage doesn't count. Jon Ivy (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A publication like the Sacramento Bee has a duty to provide coverage of all elections of consequence to its readers. Wikipedia has a long standing policy that being a candidate for public office is not a sign of default notability, and so such local coverage is counted as routine. This especially applies to candidates only running in a primary. On the other hand, this does not apply to people who are otherwise notable, which virtually all significant candidates in a presidential primary will be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Danny_Tarkanian, Scott Ashjian, John Chachas, Wayne_Allyn_Root, Larry_Elder and Ron Unz are not proof that our established consensus about the notability or non-notability of candidates is "waning" — every single one of them actually makes some other claim of notability besides the fact of being a candidate, and every single one of them cites a lot more sources than have been shown here. Whether all of their other notability claims are compelling or well-sourced ones is a different matter that would require detailed review, and perhaps nomination for deletion as well if they're not really cutting it — but none of them are claiming that the subject is notable just for being a candidate in and of itself. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are rarely compelling evidence in an AFD discussion — nothing stops anybody from creating an article about anything or anyone whether that topic meets our notability standards or not, but we have to actually notice a bad, improperly sourced article about a non-notable topic before we can do anything about it, and bad articles about non-notable topics do sometimes fly under the radar for a while because the rate at which new articles get created sometimes outpaces our ability to stay on top of getting rid of the bad ones. So the existence of any article about an unsuccessful election candidate is not in and of itself proof that this one has to be kept too — the other person may have a different notability claim besides candidacy alone, or their article may also be deletable and just hadn't gotten caught yet. "Consensus", for AFD purposes, is established by our stated inclusion criteria and actual AFD practice, not by the mere existence of any article that seems to contradict it. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete a candidate for a party nomination. Actually the article is less than clear on his actually filing to run. Short of winning the nomination, he is unlikely to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Actually, he's not a candidate for a party nomination. If you were an expert on California elections, like I am, you may know that our primaries are open, and that the top-two vote-getters from June will be on the ballot in November. 2) If you're basing his notability on a reading of the article, then you're suggesting I could edit the article to make him more notable, a suggestion that seems illogical. Jon Ivy (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2018 (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.