Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Thomas


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 05:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Thomas
Profile of candidate to US congress election Nehwyn 21:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable congressional candidate. We don't need an article for every person who runs for public office. What has this person done besides launch futile congressional campaigns? --NMChico24 01:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - unless they have something else to recommend them, such candidates tend to be non-notable until they win a seat. Fails the political section of WP:BIO --Mnem e son 01:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with above, Non-notable congressional candidate. Article also contains unsourced conspiratorial speculation. &mdash; Linnwood 01:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If he wins this year, then he can have an article. TJ Spyke 02:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN and slight propaganda.-- Hús  ö  nd  03:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above.UberCryxic 03:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete There are hundreds of congressional candidates every year that get wikipedia pages. Steve Kagen, who is running for the Eight congressional district in WI, is running for congress for the first time and he gets an article. Jeff Thomas has run several times. The standards for non-notable are too subjective. User Gwjones2 8:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Above account is not 'new' per se, however has only edited to two articles - Russ Feingold (four times, months ago), and Jeff Thomas (nearly sole contributor). Thanks for making us aware of another article that needs deletion - WP:BIO has a section on politicians, and people merely running for office don't qualify --Mnem e son 14:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just added several citations and did not have any before, because I did not know how to do it. I reworded the article to make it more balanced but the editing will not appear for some reason. If you edit the article you can see the changes. If you feel that more editing is necessary, please feel free to do so.
 * Comment I fixed the formatting so the full version of the article can be seen and debated (you had your / on the wrong side of "ref").--Isotope23 15:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, does not meet WP:BIO.--Isotope23 15:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, recreate if he (hopefully) wins.-- danntm T C 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, good point... this could absolutely be recreated if he wins the election he is running in; he'd meet WP:BIO at that point.--Isotope23 18:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, but remove the speculation. This is a candidate for a national political office and is backed by one of the two major political parties.  I found multiple articles discussing Thomas in a brief search of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel website.  The article has the potential for expansion.  Minus the speculation, the article is verifiable and neutral.  Notability "standards" are POV and subjective; our policies are best served by keeping the verifiable portion of this article. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 15:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Articles about candidates for national office with verifiable information about them shouldn't be deleted, period (if part of the article is not verifiable, delete that part)-- Zantastik  talk  16:55, 6 October 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.