Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David M. Dodson


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

David M. Dodson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Politician who hasn't been elected to a notable office yet and his business career is not notable. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 23:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 22.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 23:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The article reads too much like a puff piece, not a balanced, unbiased article.TH1980 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable individual, not enough showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Marquardtika (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet unelected candidates in future elections — if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to pass WP:NPOL. But this shows no evidence of preexisting notability at all: outside of his campaign-related coverage itself, this is referenced entirely to blogs and primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, which are not support for notability at all, and the couple of pieces of campaign-related coverage don't automatically hand him a WP:GNG pass, because every candidate in any election could always show some of that. We are not a free publicity venue for aspiring officeholders to post their campaign brochures — if he wins the election in November, then obviously he'll clear NPOL as an actual elected officeholder, and the article can then be recreated as his basis for notability will have changed. But no, nothing here qualifies him to have an article just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete- He doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN nor is his business career notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete NPOL L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  03:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  03:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  03:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I had no idea who he is, but happened across an article about his candidacy in the Jackson Hole, WY, daily a few days ago and searched to see if Wikipedia had an article about him. He's not a politician but he's running for office. He takes the time to teach courses during the spring and fall semester at what is arguably (not my opinion, but that of prestigious rating organizations) the best school of business in the U.S., though he certainly doesn't need the money. He's done extremely well in business since earning an MBA at Stanford, and used that success to co-found and direct a non-profit that reaches 25 million undernourished people throughout the Third World and which has high ratings from organizations that evaluate the footprint and corporate accountability of non-profits. He's started up and been the CEO of many firms. I only checked one, at random from the article's list, but it was extremely successful and acquired by AutoZone twenty years ago after it had grown to 112 stores. He would have been 36 at the time. He had a major part in developing grain processing equipment that enables underdeveloped countries to raise nutrition standards with local facilities. I got a very strong impression that up to the present, he may have tried to avoid the limelight. He's certainly not Forbes 400 material, but I expect he's worth eight to nine figures. I find myself impressed by him. He's what is probably a moderate Republican running against an establishment incumbent, as an Independent, in the most Republican state in the U.S. I don't think Wikipedia should host junk articles, but I've run across copious amounts of those that aren't worth the electrons that support them, like ones I stumbled across featuring, i.e., voice actors whose careers consisted entirely of parts in a couple of anime shorts that probably disappeared before they aired three times. So, my perspective is, "Where's the harm in keeping it?" I don't think we should be, in November, like an astonished Butch Cassidy asking the Sundance Kid, "Who are these guys??? Activist (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * None of that has anything whatsoever to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Politicians get articles on here by holding office, not by just running for it — and otherwise they need to have already qualified for an article for some other reason independently of having been a candidate per se. But none of what you pointed out constitutes grounds for a Wikipedia article at all. We don't keep poorly sourced articles about people just to highlight how "remarkable" somebody thinks their record of accomplishment must be — reliable sourcing has to tell us that their record of accomplishment satisfies a Wikipedia inclusion criterion, but nothing here does. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. To me it seems like 's premise is based off of a hypothetical that he is elected in November and then we won't have an article for him since it would have been deleted assuming the AFD goes through. But in truth the subject doesn't fit the criteria for the article UNLESS he is elected in the first place. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 01:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And I disagree. His combined substantial accomplishments in global business and philanthropy merit an article, and his teaching at Stanford GSB adds to that, entirely exclusive of his small chance of success in current electoral politics. Activist (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think he meets WP:ACADEMIC simply by being a lecturer. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 13:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And where's the reliable sourcing (which means media coverage about it, not primary source verification in self-published content produced by the organizations he was involved with) to demonstrate that any of that prior work satisfies a Wikipedia notability criterion? Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing here to substantiate him as a notable politician as per WP:POLITICIAN... hasn't even been elected. Otherwise, nothing else of note here, not an academic either. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:20, 1 March 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.