Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Hastert


 * 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, default to "keep" Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ethan Hastert

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable individual lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance – mostly brief notices of his running from office. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN.  ttonyb (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

For normal candidates I'd normally agree. But the notoriety of Hastert's last name has garnered national media attention to this race and I think it warrants remaining on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titomuerte (talk • contribs) 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – Not sure what is a "normal" vs. non-"normal" candidacy. Notability is not inherited (from a last name or anything else) and must be demonstrated by meeting the Wikipedia criteria. In this case, notability is defined in WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb  (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: In my view, there is extensive coverage in which he is the principal subject: here. As a general note, has there ever been consideration of applying the principles of WP:BLP1E to candidates? Candidates tend to get a lot of coverage, which would pass WP:GNG, but if they fail, they're generally only notable for their candidacy. In that respect, the coverage could be said to be of the candidature and the horse race, rather than of the person. I see weaknesses in this approach (especially that it involves a bias towards incumbents and stretches the concepts of an "event" and of "low profile person") and am not putting it forward as my view but it seems like one possible way in which guidelines can be invoked to delete articles about failed candidates for political office who are not notable otherwise than for their candidacies. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – Sorry to interject my comment here, but looking at the GNEWS hits listed above, maybe only two are close to substantial articles about Hastert, the rest are only minimum discussions of the candidate. I do not see they support Wikipedia notability.   ttonyb  (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Here are the sources in more detail: 1 a Boston Herald article solely about Hastert; 2 an ABC News article from AP solely about him; 3 a FOX News article from AP solely about him; 4 a Congressional Quarterly article solely about him. That’s ignoring the multitude of state-level and local sources, and the national sources that mention him as one of a number of subjects. And just for a bit of fun, there’s coverage of his drink-driving arrest as well: here and in many other sources.  In my view, all of this coverage would get anyone who is not a political candidate past WP:GNG. The only way in which I can conceive that a political candidate should be treated differently is if WP:BLP1E applied. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – #1 is hardly a substantial article, but rather a short mention. Update - Actually, #1 is hard to tell if this is substantial or not-the article was archived. #2 and #3 are the possibles I saw, and #4 appears to be a blog and fails WP:RS. The DD mention is a WP:BIO1E that probably fails to support WP:BIO.   ttonyb  (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Congressional Quarterly is a blog that doesn't meet WP:RS? Per WP:RS, "some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". No suggestion that that standard is not met here. CQ is a highly reputable publication. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – you are correct. I should have been more specific to say that I was not sure if this was a blog or a blog with editorial oversight.   ttonyb  (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's an important distinction between candidates (in the sense of people who have actually won the nomination of their party) and people in the running for a particular candidacy. Given that pretty much anyone can run for office, the mere act of running for office doesn't of itself confer any notability at all. It's debateable whether all full-fledged candidates are notable, but it's certain that all people competing for candidacy are not. Hairhorn (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it "certain that all people competing for candidacy are not" notable? What guideline is that based on? The distinction between nominated candidates and persons seeking nomination is just an arbitrary line in the sand that you seem to be drawing. WP:GNG is the proper standard to apply... some candidates for nomination will pass, some (most) will fail. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I meant to say that "not all people running are notable", not "all people are running are not notable". I often rag on people for making this very mistake. As for the line in the sand, it doesn't look arbitrary to me: it's the difference between running in a primary and running in an election. Have a look at wp:politician; notability is demonstrated through third party coverage, not through the simple act of filing election papers. Hairhorn (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a clear distinction that can be made, but I think an unhelpful and arbitrary one as far as notability is concerned. For example, a genuine Democratic candidate for nomination in an open safe Democratic seat is likely to be far more notable than a Democrat who is the nominee in a safe Republican seat held by an entrenched incumbent. Do you agree that some candidates for nomination might be notable? I certainly agree that not all will be (the vast vast majority won't). It then comes down to the test of substantial coverage per WP:GNG, which I think Hastert Jr has in spades. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, as I tried to clarify, I don't think all people running for office are non-notable, that would be a farcical thing to say. But I will say — as the wiki notabilty policy says — that notability is demonstrated by third party coverage, not by filing election papers. Hairhorn (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No sensible person could disagree with that! --Mkativerata (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: No one seems to address his status as son of the former speaker of the house. One cannot deny the importance of family relations in this matter, since almost every member of Barack Obama's family has their own wikipedia page. Their notoriety comes entirely from their family relationship to the President, like this guy: here. Or this person: no one can honestly tell me that Maya Soetoro Ng is more notable than Ethan Hastert  Titomuerte  (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No one's address his status as son of the former speaker of the house because it doesn't make him notable. Hairhorn (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – Notability is not inherited from family members. Each article must stand on it's own merits.  This AfD is about Wikipedia based notability (which both the Lolo_Soetoro and Maya_Soetoro article meet), not "real-world" notability.  As stated above, the Hastert article does not appear to meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability.  ttonyb  (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I haven't decided how (or if) I'll !vote on this AfD, but I want to point out that the article as it originally appeared was a real hackjob.  Also, to Titomuerte, notability is not inherited, and if you find an article of someone who isn't individually notable but seems to be listed only by virtue of a family relationship, well, I hear you but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  Bothered that it hasn't been nominated for deletion?  WP:SOFIXIT.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 08:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't think Hastert has sufficient coverage yet to pass the general notability guideline. I added an AP article published by the Boston Herald about his primary campaign, but it's almost trivial coverage. The other mentions are typically in relation to other candidates that are offspring of legislators and Hastert gets fairly trivial coverage there. I think it's quite possible that he will become notable in two weeks time, and would be happy to see the article recreated then. Jogurney (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – I disagree based on his previous coverage and the current potential of his congressional race, where I understand he's considered the clear front runner. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say his article ought to be deleted in two weeks if he loses his race?  Titomuerte (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Also you referenced Hastert's appearance in Google News as mattering to his level of notability. But I performed a google news search on a random person from the pages you've created (Cedric Faure) and Hastert has 3 times as many pages.  Titomuerte (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I referenced Google News because it is an indication of whether the article would pass WP:GNG - and I missed the discussion above where someone listed 4 potential sources that would satisfy the GNG. I don't think those 4 sources quite pass GNG, but agree that it's close. As far as waiting 2 weeks to delete, I don't think that's appropriate and we have no way of knowing if Mr. Hastert will win the election and whether such victory would result in coverage significant enough to pass the GNG. As far as Faure, please feel free to take that article to AfD - I simply created a poor stub on him years ago - but I would be shocked if he isn't considered notable based on his exploits as a professional athlete. Jogurney (talk) 13:02, 20 January 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.