Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Pringle (activist) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. North America1000 23:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

David Pringle (activist)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a candidate for public office. The coverage surrounding him is primarily about his campaign and he doesn't meet WP:GNG independent of his political campaign. Article also has problematic promotionalism, including "Pringle has shown robust knowledge of the nuts and bolts of both state and federal governance." Marquardtika (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep While he is running for a public office, that is only part of the article. He has worked as an environmental activist for many years, as is well-documented.Djflem (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Keep The article was initially nominated for deletion in December because, while his activism was robust, his campaign was new and had limited coverage. Since then he's seen a lot of independent coverage, including in Politico, The Observer, and many NJ papers. That combined with his large public record of activism should qualify this page as sufficiently noteworthy. If his page is too promotional, it can be edited to remove that. Lebanonman19 (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - An article with this title was nominated at AfD on 22 December 2017 and was deleted as a result for lack of notability. It was recreated in January 2018 and I nominated it for speedy deletion under G4, as an article that had been recreated after deletion, but that was rejected. The article is overly promotional and the subject is no more notable now than he was at the last AfD. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete- just being a candidate does get him pass WP:POLITICIAN and his activism only gets local coverage. And then there's also the fact this was just deleted about a month ago.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment; Which version of the article is referred to in "the fact this was just deleted about a month ago"? How similar or different is this in contrast/comparison?Djflem (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The answer is, it doesn't matter. The article was deleted because the subject fails notability requirement and he still does not pass them now.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't matter, why mention it then? And why to continue to ignore the fact the the article mentions the candidacy but is NOT based on he candidacy, but his work as an environmental advocate?
 * I mentioned it because I answered your question. None of the sources prior to the campaign are actually about Pringle. They are about environmental problems in the state and they quote or two from Pringle. That's not significant coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as indicated above by DJflem and Lebanonman19, and as seen in the article, there are plenty of reliable and verifiable sources with in-depth coverage about him to meet the general notability criteria. Kudos on the expanded article with ample sourcing; any claimed issues re promotional content are poor excuses for deletion and excellent arguments for discussing and editing the article. Alansohn (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete continues to not be notabile. Candidates for public office are almost never notable, and nothing suggest he is an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article mentions the candidacy but is NOT based on he candidacy, but his work as an environmental advocate. The nomination is based on a false claim: the coverage is NOT primarily about his campaign.Djflem (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per Djflem. The subject is notable because it is not a 1E article about his congressional campaign but rather focuses more on his environmental activism. Also, articles should only be deleted if they're beyond any hope of improvement; this is very far from the case here. The delete !voters have very weak arguments as seen above. Davey2116 (talk) 04:38, 15 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.