Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Shepard (American 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. I'm going with delete, as this is a BLP in pretty bad shape.  — fetch ·  comms   01:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Jack Shepard (American politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I'm from Minnesota, and I have to admit that I have heard late-night radio ads by this guy. However, not much has been writte about him in reliable sources. He's quite "nutty", has a big ego, and he only seems to be notable in his own mind; indeed, much of this article was written by two SPAs, at least one of whom is probably Shepard or someone closely linked with him: and. So, delete per WP: N and WP: SPAM. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This one has so many WP:BLP issues that it would be foolish to keep it. The persons who wrote the article clearly enjoy dredging up things from his past, but even if it was positive or promotional, he's a perennial candidate who has tried but not succeeded in winning a race.  Go do your mudslinging somewhere else.  Mandsford 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, by "do your mudslinging somewhere else" you are referring to the author(s) of the article, not to me, right? Stonemason89 (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true Stone. Sorry not to respond to you sooner, I've been on the road.  Mandsford 21:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep He is "nutty" as most people define it. This dentist sold his practice in 1975 and apparently entered a life of crime (sexual assault drug possession arson) and politics as a Republican. While a fugitive in Italy, he sought office in MN, pardons for his crimes and made independent peace initiatives in Europe. Needless to say the media took note:   Notability is the requirement, not nobility. Losers, criminals and wackos are often notable and receive significant coverage from independent sources. Although not reflected in most deletion discussions, inclusion in wikipedia is not a reward for good works or success; it simply acknowledges notability.  Eudemis (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not able to get the link in footnote 1 to open, which it really needs to do. I'll further add my sentiment that active politicians are public figures and inherently notable. The lowest of all possible bars should be placed for the inclusion of politicians in Wikipedia, as the presentation of their biographies here is a great public service. Carrite (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The policy regarding notability of politicans is in WP:POLITICIAN, and includes this: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'" Elected (and appointed) office-holders at the national level are inherently notable, but running for office is simply running for office.  In law, public figures are entitled to less of a protection against defamation of character than private individuals, and truth is a defense to libel, but neither legal principle has any bearing on Wikipedia's policy set in WP:BLP.  Certainly, he's made news, particularly in Minnesota where people seem to be charmed with his wacky escapades, but is he notable for being a candidate who has gotten into legal trouble?  USA Today notwithstanding, in my opinion, no.  Mandsford 21:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete with leave to rewrite a neutral non-BLP-violating article. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Eudemis - "nutty" is not a reason to delete. Lots of nutty people would not have articles.  If that were true, I'd have to nominate Andrew Breitbart and Sharron Angle for deletion.  But there is some evidence that this is a person who gets into the news from time to time, but who hasn't done anything notable. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. All he's done is get his name into a couple of congressional primary elections, and lose a bunch of times.  Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN.  The other random trivial news stories are not notable, and not referenced.  The primary reference that this BLP article is based on is a dead link.    Snotty Wong   verbalize 23:31, 29 July 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.