Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack E. Robinson III


 * 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   keep. JForget 22:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack E. Robinson III

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable individual, ran for office three times without winning. Per WP:POLITICIAN, simply running for office does not establish notability. Muboshgu (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There certainly are media sources available about him, although they have not yet been included in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If those "media sources" exclusively pertain to his political campaigns, then it fails to establish notability. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Losing a campaign does not disqualify the sources that cover that campaign. These sources still establish notability. Cunard (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:BIO. See these three articles from The Boston Globe, as well as this article from The Economist. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Running for the US Senate as a major party nominee demonstrates notability. It's not as though the media sometimes forget to cover the campaigns and candidates. Even the Republican sacrificial goat who ran against Joe Lieberman a few years back and got about 18 votes [irony alert] is recognized as notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Being a major party nominee for any race does not inherently demonstrate notability. The "sacraficial goat" you mention doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and nor should he.  Those pieces Cunard produced may demonstrate notability, but they may not.  I haven't read them yet. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Response. Wrong on every point. For example, Alan Schlesinger. Until newspapers and TV stations stop covering US Senate races, being a major party nominee guarantees meeting the GNG; Wikipedia notability requirements aren't meant to force editors to waste time documenting what's self-evident to reasonable, modestly-informed people. And if you're going to quote me, please don't introduce spelling errors that I didn't make. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I think in all likelihood that a major party candidate for senator will necessarily be of such great importance as a politician there will always be sources, and if we do not find them, it is the fault of an incomplete search. Fortunately, given the ongoing great expansion in GBooks and GNews Archive, this will become rarer--but of course there are still print sources. The criterion is unsourceable, and the conclusion should not be reached that this is unsourceable without such a search. In any case, every article on the campagin will inevitably discuss the careers of both candidates. H.w. has it exactly right.    DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 31 August 2009 (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.