Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Bender


 * 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bender

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Proposed for deletion because "Fails WP:N. Potential candidate for a political position, not yet elected. No evidence that his life prior to his candidacy was reported upon by independent reliable sources. Article has promotional overtones, and is largely based on press releases and personal homepage." Some of the promo language has been removed since, but the article still fails to show how this political candidate meets WP:BIO (WP:POLITICIAN). Fram (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete If he wins the Republican nomination he will be notable, because of the expected major press coverage. Until he does, he's not likely to be, unless a good deal more is shown than is shown by the present article. DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep He has already received major press coverage. You can't arbitrarily decide the matter; read (WP:POLITICIAN) for the exact criteria by which we consider articles for inclusion or removal. As the rules state, a political candidate may or may not be notable for his candidacy alone (i.e. a city council candidate who receives no press coverage). They are notable if they receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." The subject clearly meets this criterion. Even if he wasn't notable for his business career (which he is), his political candidacy has produced major press coverage "independent of [him]." His columns appear in New Hampshire's state paper, the Union Leader; he regularly appears and is discussed on the state's news station, WMUR; and he's discussed in the Boston Globe, Politico, and other reliable, independent sources. Inclusion of the subject can only enhance Wikipedia as a credible source of information.  X127.0.0.1 ( talk ) --X127.0.0.1 (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How is he notable for his business career? Taking a source from the article about his business career, we see that he is only mentioned in passing, and as an example of someone who has "worked out of the spotlight", indicating that as of 2004, he was considered to be not notable by reliable sources. The only thing that changed since is his political candidacy, which is a WP:BLP1E better covered in an election article, if at all. Fram (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While the notability of his business career is something upon which a question may be raised, the publicity and major press coverage he has received as a result of his senate candidacy qualifies him as notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulMRichard (talk • contribs) 15:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Having reviewed the article, I see no basis for deletion. It contains numerous, independent citations indicating major press coverage and it meets (WP:POLITICIAN). He's notable, so unless there's some other argument for deletion, the page should stay. Pfirsichen --Pfirsichen (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (WP:POLITICIAN) makes it clear that potential candidates for office may or may not be notable enough to merit inclusion, so the arguement that if "he wins the Republican nomination he will be notable, because of the expected major press coverage" is not valid. In addition, the phrase "expected major press coverage" incorrectly assumes that there has been no major press coverage already. It is clear that this article deserves to exist. Furthermore, the message at the top of the page suggesting possible deletion of the article should be removed as it tarnishes the article despite being based on an incorrect reading of the rules outlined on the (WP:POLITICIAN) page.  PaulMRichard ( talk ) 11:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete However notable he may be (and I'm not convinced), this is spam. If it is to survive, it should be without the 'election manifesto' promises sections which are just advertising. Peridon (talk) 17:58, 8 June 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.