Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Herbert


 * 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. policy is quite clear in these cases Spartaz Humbug! 03:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Herbert

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This is an article for a person who is a candidate for office but otherwise lacks notability. WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3 addresses this point specifically, that just being a nominee does not automatically confer notability. This article also fails the general notability guidelines, as the coverage is either a) name-drops within an article about their more well-known, notable opponent b) simple voting/registry directory of who is running for this seat, or c) on the local level only, with no national interest. Per the further explanation at WP:POLITICIAN on what to do with failures, a merger to the appropriate district page is a viable option to deletion. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep IMO, Bad faith nom. Tarc has been involved in an ongoing dispute with another editor who started an ANI debate related to politicians who are running for office and the election is a week away.  That editor left Tarc a snarky comment notifying Tarc of the ANI discussion.  Tarc response is to open this AFD with a comment at ANI saying, so off we go with a few trial balloons.  In 8 days we will have a better understanding as to whether or not these candidates win or lose and thus deserve an article or not.  Anybody who casts an !vote now, which is supposed to give guidance to a closing administrator, is doing so via a crystal ball.  It doesn't matter if they meet Politician today, what matters is will they when this is closed?  Thus, in light of the ANI discussion, I consider this (and all other nominations made by Tarc on the subject to be POINTY.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious delete - fails notability here and now. Period. Should have been left as a redirect in the first place, and I see nothing POINTY in the nomination. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete at this point, just another nn candidate running for office. As per repeated precedent, being a candidate does not pass WP:N, and I see nothing else here that argues notability at this time. Resolute 19:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep pending election With the election in a week, zero damage is done to WP by allowing the discussion to run the full course until the election is over.  This is not even an unreferenced BLP - for which 10 days would be normal for deletion. Collect (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM is not a valid reason to retain an article, sorry. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * but Collect is talking more in the terms of noharm than the guideline noharm--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * response - we didn't do this with the UK general election; ISTR that articles like this were routinely deleted a day or two before the election. Why do our American non-notable candidates get privileged in a special way? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Bad faith. See the entire 'exchange' here. In the last couple of days I've stumbled across, by clicking a blue link, to other deleted/redirected articles done by other Wikipedians as well, with no discernible posting/discussion/consensus, which is why I became concerned enough to request a freeze until after the election. This is not the place or time, but eight days from now will be fine. If I had known of this Douglas Herbert article earlier, I myself would have marked it for Merge, but it linked to the 'total U.S. election' article/chart rather than the state's election article, which is what I've been working from. I simply don't have time to track every article every day from now until the election. Do I care about this article? Not particularly. I do care about Scott M. Sipprelle, more of a 'contender' and certainly a better article, which Tarc also deleted and redirected. Let Tarc get this article 'okayed', and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts he'll take that as a license to delete the article of every candidate he doesn't like. I have no interest in watching the 2008 Wikipedia Campaign Wars repeat themselves. btw - 'redirect' is not a synonym for 'merge'. Flatterworld (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming bad faith is not a valid keep rationale. If this individual is notable, I am certain you can show that to be the case, rather than attacking the nominator. Resolute 19:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, KEEP. First, he won the primary election, so in that sense he's already notable for winning an election. Second, the office is at the state or national level, so he's presumed notable. You want to tag the article with helpful suggestions (such as more inline citations, more coverage, whatever), knock yourself out. Flatterworld (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep plenty of Google news hits.  DC   T • C   20:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to abstain from voting, myself. Though I did look over the 12 Google News hits.  Only the first six seem to have anything to say about him.  After that, other than the campaign press release, they only seem to mention him in passing as the opponent of the article subject. Hazardous Matt (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Google hits is not a valid criteria. The "hits" should be evaluated for quality, not quantity. Tarc (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Doug may not meet POLITICIAN, but let's see if he meets our GNGs? Here's some news on Doug (note no single source/magazine used more than once): None of these are trivial mentions or places where the candidate is covered as an aside such as the New Jersy Jewish News, they are all in depth coverage about Doug, which clearly establish him as meeting our GNG. There are sources that I could have added, but I'm not completely sold on their reliability.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This individual has received sufficient coverage in independent sources, though some more of that material should be put into the article.  By the way, in response to the nomination, I see nothing in WP:GNG that excludes "local" sources.  I also think that an entire Congressional District transcends "local".  Neutron (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See GNG and GNG in regards to local sources. Even an election for dog catcher can expect a blurb or two in the local rag.  To demonstrate notability, sources beyond the routine should be seen. Tarc (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did look at those, which is why I limited my selection of articles to one article per source (I could have provided numerous articles from the local papers) and I looked for articles that were beyond the basics (E.g. non-trivial in coverage.)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as NN POLITICIAN. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  21:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Daily Record article on Doug
 * Independent Press
 * NJ Herald covers him
 * Bayshore news
 * There was something in the National Register called "His and Herbert" which looks like it is about Doug Herbert, but you have to register with them and I don't register just to see pages.
 * World News
 * Star Register
 * Redirect then restore if the guy does get elected. I agree with the arguments that he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN just yet, but I don't see how a delete is better than simply redirecting the article to a more relevant entry.--Hongkongresident (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, obvious Bad Faith - This must be the fourth or fifth article I've seen where the challenger in a race is nominated for deletion. -- NINTENDUDE 64 02:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * annoyed reply - That's because under WP:POLITICIAN challengers are not inherently notable; incumbents almost always are. I formally request that you withdraw this false and incivil accusation of bad faith on the part of people trying to consistently apply our guidelines. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Annoyed" Response - Withdrawal formally denied, it's in bad faith. A challenger in a race for a federal office is clearly notable. I'm sure the fact that the national election is a week away has nothing to do with these recent nominations. Nope, not at all. -- NINTENDUDE 64 03:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing for de facto notability for federal office candidates? The examples below are evidence that not everyone thinks challengers are "clearly notable". Location (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not like he's running for city dog catcher. In my opinion, a major party candidate in a race for a federal office is notable. -- NINTENDUDE 64 03:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no guideline that grants inherent or de facto notability to major party candidates for federal office. If it is the one event that makes the subject notable, then the article should be redirected to the event per WP:BLP1E. Location (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While I agree that being a political candidate doesn't make one de facto notable, I would argue that this is not BLP1E... political campaigns are ongoing events. It would be like saying the 1990 NFL season was one event.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2010 per precedent in similar articles (e.g. Articles for deletion/Craig Weber, Articles for deletion/Rami Bader (politician), Articles for deletion/Naheed Nenshi, Articles for deletion/Billy Coyle, Articles for deletion/Mike Kelly (Pennsylvania), Articles for deletion/Lisa Johnston, Articles for deletion/Ann Marie Buerkle (Politician)). I interpret routine election coverage to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Also, the coverage about the candidate is in the context of the election, so (per WP:BLP1E) redirect to the election article. Location (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. With elections upcoming it is a real bad time to nominate individual politicians for deletion. Wholly inconsistent with the spirit of our BLP policy. Unless they are unequivically unnotable (not this person), these afd's should be speedily closed per our BLP policy.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Who cares? The tag will now stay until the election; I'll cast my !vote then. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep has sufficient sources, meets GNG. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least temporarily. Man, what a waste of time and effort. There is merely ONE editor, Tarc, that wants to flat out destroy the work of many editors 7 days before Election Day.  The information is going to be destroyed for no good reason other than Tarc wants to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.  As to this particular article, just wait one week and then after Election Day there will be time to decide which articles are to be deleted and which ones will be merged.  There is no harm to Wikipedia in waiting, but there is huge potential harm to Wikipedia in destroying editor's work prematurely.  It makes Wikipedia look like a partisan free for all. Also, complete deletion is absolutely wrong.  There are less destructive ways to handle these articles.--InaMaka (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Location, OrangeMike, etc, according to long-standing consensus at WP:POLITICIAN. Ray  Talk 05:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 05:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 05:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It;'s time we recognized that a candidate of a major party for national office will always meet the GNG, as this has shown among many others--it's just a matter of finding the sources. We should instead devote ourselves to keeping the articles free of promotionalism. Tht'swhat important.    DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment. This one is not as clear cut as the others. Having this listed until after the election will be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 1 November 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.