Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Obey


 * 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (The people rejoice!) 05:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Doug Obey
Candidate for state election. Delete per Articles for deletion/Claire Naughton Clappingsimon talk 05:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Brian 05:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)btball
 * Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 06:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This person is a notable candidate running for state election against a notable opponent, running on highly notable issues. To delete an article on him would basically be censorship. Dwain 16:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This unjustifiable attempt to delete this article is a politically-motivated attempt at censorship. --Dfitzgerald 18:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep,  iff  some data can be mined showing a realistic chance of success in the election (candidates who run just to warm up the ballot are not inherently notable). The article is somewhat fluff now - what does the guy do for a living? I'm presuming he's an architect... Does he have positions on issues other than gay marriage and the state income tax? And what do the editorials say about the candidacy? bd2412  T 19:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but do not interpret as precedent outside of Massachusetts. I point out Massachusetts general election, 2006. Instead of setting up articles for each race (per the proposal at Candidates and elections), the editors have set up/provided for articles for the major-party candidates. From a procedural standpoint, it makes some sense to just leave their structure in place. The alternative would be to merge his info to an article on Massachusetts State Senate election, Suffolk and Norfolk District, 2006, and that title is a bit ungainly and hard to search on. —C.Fred (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - if keep is supported then precedent should apply to all states and not just Massachusetts. Why is Massachusetts singled out? KarenAnn 20:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I singled out Massachusetts because of how they have structured the 2006 article on the general elections. By contrast, North Carolina has no article for the 2006 general elections, so for the same issue in NC, I would have suggested merging the information into an article on the lines of North Carolina House District 42, 2006 election. As a matter of feasability, I figured it is easier to keep the current structure for Mass. than to redo all the articles for challengers in all races in the state. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep if BD2412's conditions can be met. An also ran in a state legislative election isn't particularly notable.  If, for some reason, a candidate is particularly noteworthy then I say he would merit an article, but someone who runs once and loses won't be of interest to anyone after the election is over, and to very few while the campaign is ongoing. --Briancua 21:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Candidacy alone does not make one notable. Neither his accomplishments nor his stance on the issues add to his notability. The only outside link is to his campaign wev site, so I suspect a bit of WP:VAIN as well. No sources cited. There are many areas where this article fails to meet Wikipedia standards, so politics doesn't enter into it. --DarkAudit 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:BIO needs a guideline on election candidates Clappingsimon talk 08:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is in fact a current proposed guideline at Candidates and elections, to which User:Cfred referred above. -- Wine Guy  Talk  22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - bd2412's condition's have not been met, and I don't think they can be. Candidate has never held public office, and is running against a six-term incumbant.  I can only find two articles that mention Obey as a candidate; one criticizing Obey's statement that "Once again Senator Walsh has shown that she is bought and paid for by the gay lobby on Beacon Hill," implying that he is a one issue candidate only concerned with the gay marriage issue, and one on a different candidate that features a quote from Obey. -- Vary | Talk 17:21, 27 July 2006 (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.