Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Willard (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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Dean Willard
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, non-notable candidate for a state legislative seat, limited press coverage, not the in-depth coverage required by the standard. GregJackP (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 *  delete  Non-notable politician, fails WP:POLITICIAN  Loquitor (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep changing to keep after kgrr's explanation and reviewing sources. Close call.  Loquitor (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:POLITICIAN: "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." Willard is an unelected candidate for political office.  Yes, this in itself does not guarantee notability.  Now read the although clause.  Per WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.  The current article has 10 references, all them deal with Dean Willard in some various degrees of detail.  kgrr  talk 19:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - per footnote 7 to WP:POLITICIAN, "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." None of the cited references are "in depth," they are passing mentions that he is running, usually just a paragraph or two.  He does not meet the standard as explained by the standard or the footnote. (GregJackP (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment - Footnote 7: "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." This is probably not going to change your mind, but let me try to explain what I mean by "in depth". References 3 and 4 are certainly what I would call "in depth".  The whole articles are written about Dean Willard.  Multiple means two or more, therefore this meets footnote 7.  Additionally, the rest of the articles (references 2, 9, and 10) are specifically about Willard, however, the newspaper also brings up the incumbent, Glenn Anderson, in these articles "to be balanced."  I would call the remaining references (1, 5, 6, 7, and 8) "in passing."   kgrr  talk 09:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The community has set a standard with WP:POLITICIAN that should only be departed from with good reason. One good reason might be if there is a clear case that the politician passes WP:GNG. This is not such a clear case. User:kgrr's analysis of the sources is helpful but I disagree on one critical point: the reliablity of references 3 and 4. Those articles do not demonstrate the degree of critical coverage one would expect for an article about a politician. The articles are very one-sided; essentially free column space. This is why local news coverage should generally be considered insufficient for politicians. We can't build reliable articles upon them because they lack appropriate critical reporting. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - References 3 and 4 may be one-sided because they are "in-depth" and are not balanced-out. In turn did you consider references 2, 9, and 10 that did discuss the other candidate?  They are not as "in depth" because the articles are limited to a number of column-inches.  Also note that WP:RS specifically allows the use of biased sources.  Most newspapers are known to be biased one way or the other.  In writing this article, I have picked articles from all the papers in the area to make sure it meets WP:NPOV.  In all honesty, I don't get your point. kgrr  talk 16:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * General comment - Do you really apply this same standard to all politicians equally? How about Skip Priest? How about Dino Rossi?  How about Chris Dudley who is running for Governor in Oregon?  Or how about Allen Alley?  Or how about John Lim?  Or, even Meg Whitman, known for her tenure at E-Bay turned candidate for Governor of California?  I really have not seen references scrutinized to this extent for any article to be honest with you - politicians, athletes, musicians, movie stars, or Pokemon characters.  Are you really questioning the reliability of any of the references to this extent?  Why are you not nominating these others for AfD?  They certainly don't meet your standards either. I don't get it.  kgrr  talk 16:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of things. First, about the sources. References 2, 9 and 10 are similarly local. They therefore have the same reliability problems as 3 and 4. It is not just an an issue of bias; the issue is whether we trust our sources to correctly report the facts and do so in a critical way. If our sources can't do that, our article can't do it as the article is only as good as its sources. As for the other articles, there may be very good reason why they are kept. Meg Whitman was obviously a highly successful businesswoman and is notable for that reason; Dino Rossi is a former State Senator so passes WP:POLITICIAN; Chris Dudley is a former NBA player so passes WP:ATH; Allen Alley is questionable but clearly much more notable than Willard. Generally, we don't judge notability on the existence of other articles: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * comment - Let me see if I understand you right. What you are saying is that the large in-print paper in town, the Seattle Times is a reliable source but the only other small papers left in-print are not reliable sources because *you feel* that they cannot correctly report the facts and do so in a critical way?  My God. They are *all* owned by the same company anyway -- The Seattle Times Company.  Please show me the policy in WP:RS??  kgrr  talk 22:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, essentially, you've represented me correctly. In WP:RS a reliable news source must have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". That's generally non-existent in local newspapers. Based on my review of the general uncritical quality of the coverage provided by the local sources here, that generalisation applies in this case. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How can you possibly make such a blanket statement, especially from Australia? Issaquah press has such a reputation.  The Issaquah press regularly hires interns to for fact-checking and accuracy.  I will e-mail the Editors of all of my references to find out what their fact checking policy is.  I truly don't buy your nonsense.  kgrr  talk 02:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * comment - I contacted Jake Lynch, Editor, Issaquah/Sammamish Reporter papers (Sound Publishers). He tells me that they generally get two or more independent sources for facts they collect.  They cannot afford an accusation of yellow journalism.  He tells me that they are held even more to the journalistic standard than larger papers because they have to live in the community they serve.  kgrr  talk 22:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * comment - I was not able to speak to the editor at the Seattle Times, but the person at the help desk told me that of course they check articles for accuracy. They use two independent sources on controversial facts and figures.  They cannot correct mistakes once they are made because their paper is in print and cannot afford to lose subscribers.  They stand behind journalistic standards.  This is why they are not a tabloid.  kgrr  talk 22:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 19:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver  seren C 19:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The discussion above about the reliability of the sources seems kind of silly to me. Regardless about the local newspapers, the Seattle Times is enough to establish notability by itself and the coverage of the article is about the guy, so it's not trivial. This clearly meets #3 of WP:POLITICIAN. Silver  seren C 19:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I wrote in the first AfD, this person rates per WP:POLITICIAN as a professional politician.  He's a county committeeman, chair of a committee, and has been a staffer for several state and local officers.  He's not just a one-time candidate.  The county he lives in quite large in population and area.  I think the Seattle Times ranks as a major newspaper - more than just a village weekly newsletter. He has gotten coverage from both the Seattle Times and more local papers, enough to satisfy me that he is notable. However, I can see that this is not a clear case, and reasonable people can disagree. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * !Keep Comment - I agree with Bearian as far as the notability issue. I see no reason to believe that there is a reliability issue with the local papers as alleged by Mkativerata  kgrr  talk 20:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - AGF, I assume you didn't really mean to !vote twice. (GregJackP (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment - That was not my intention. Thanks.   kgrr  talk 22:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete  I tend to be inclusive about major party  candidates for national office, but he's just running for the state house of representatives. This is a stage n a political career where a person is not yet notable. And in his case, he has not even won the party primary yet.    DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being a county-level committeeman is not enough. The guy he's trying to unseat hasn't even got an article, evidence of the non-notability of the state rep position. And, I'll wager, he is what we call a "sacrificial lamb", someone the party leaders get to run in a district that has a popular incumbent. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:16, 16 April 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.