Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Bennett (Massachusetts politician)


 * 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. A close call, but we may probably take into account that the article was created by the single purpose account, who has also been repeatedly removing the AfD notices. This does not bode well for the development of the article. Let's give this guy a chance to write up his CV on his own website. Sandstein 06:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Doug Bennett (Massachusetts politician)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails notability requirements. This person's claim to fame seems to be that he was a county selectman and lost an election for state senate. However, he does not seem to have received any attention from the media other than a couple of mentions in the local paper, certainly not "significant press coverage". Eatcacti (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Article needs quite a bit of work, however does appear to be notable. Google News search brings back over 50 hits, and some of the articles, according to the headlines, appear to be specifically about the subject himself.  Reliable sources include the Cape Cod Times and The Boston Globe. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless rewritten from reliable sources by end of AFD. At present this is a frankly hilarious hagiography wherein the selectman is compared with Cincinnatus and Abraham Lincoln in the same paragraph, padded out with tangential puffery such as working at an "historic" fishmarket in the "legendary" Faneuil Hall. (I guess that must have been some fishmarket job.) There are many unsupported characterizations such as a "shocked" electorate (they must not have thought their votes would count). It also tries to fold in biographies of his relatives. Thin gruel indeed with lots of brown sugar. Naturally, it is written by a single-purpose account. --Dhartung | Talk 03:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. I see the Globe did do a profile on him.  That certainly counts.  Not sure if I give as much weight to the Nantucket paper which is doing more or less a local blurb about his announcement .  Problems: parts of the article are copied verbatim from his senate campaign page  or very heavily influenced by his campaign .  At this point, I would bet my last dollar that he or his campaign is engaging in wikispam.  He may have done genuinely notable things.  If more articles similar to the Globe surfaced and the article underwent a complete non-Bennett influenced re-write I could certainly be pursuaded otherwise.  But appropriating money isn't notable, nor is passing a non-binding resolution. Its what politicians do. Montco (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing some of the changes, the campaign page copy was removed, however, they just make the article less copyvio but still spammy. I don't know how the article addresses notability.  The source on his arrest for a racial attack that Sarcasticidealist brought up would certainly add to a case for notability but is not noted in the article.  So far all I see is a county commissioner in Massachusetts who married well and has been defeated in races for higher offices with a unique campaign style.  No sale.Montco (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (link inserted into my commentary by Americanpatriot1976)
 * OK, so there is nothing to the racial attack angle. I thought something there would add to notability but I guess not.
 * Delete I don't see anything here that makes him notable, the whole article reads like an ad. -- Dougie WII (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep He obviously doesn't hold a position that's been deemed inherently notable, but, as User:Rjd0060 noted, he's been the subject of significant coverage (,, Based on that third link, he seems to have something of a reputation for quixotic election attempts. [[User:Sarcasticidealist|Sarcasticidealist] (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2007 (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.