Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Feldkamp


 * 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  23:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim Feldkamp

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

Unsuccessful candidate in an election, no other claims to notability. Blueboy96 15:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete No other claim to notability other than failed run for office, which is not in itself sufficiently notable. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As a major-party candidate for state representative and a politician who has come under public media scrutiny for his campaign practices, he seems to have garnered enough coverage to pass WP:BIO quite easily. That his campaign failed is not relevant as long as he passes the primary notability criterion. Jfire (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jfire (edit conflicted actually) He's generated enough press through the campaign practice scandals to make him notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete okay, we have an ex-FBI agent, ex-college football player, who owns his own business and is an adjunct professor at a community college who ran for congress twice and lost. Now what did I miss? Triple3D (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some candidacies are notable, some are not; the mere fact that his candidacy is the main claim to fame is not enough to establish lack of notability. In this case, Feldkamp and his candidacy have been the subject of numerous articles in The Register-Guard (2nd largest paper in Oregon), and also covered in the Albany Democrat-Herald for his business activities (not just his candidacy.) Also, fundraising issues were covered in the East Oregonian, a publication that is located far outside the district he ran in. These stories span 2004–2008. Extensive coverage in independent sources on multiple events establishes notability. Article can and should be improved, though. -Pete (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per above &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  20:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't see what makes this particular candidate more notable than anyone else. Lots of people run against incumbents, lots lose. They all get press coverage during that time, but outside of that campaign season they won't ever be covered again. erc talk/contribs 22:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Notability (people), bullet 3 and Notability. He appears to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject."  According to the notability guideline, such an article is "presumed to be notable."  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.   —Katr67 (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep he's notable . He meets the multiple reliabe sources providing non-trivial coverage.  Never heard of him myself, but that doesn't matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep due to volume of coverage, although I think there are several portions of the article that aren't compliant with WP:BLP. I'll give cleaning it up a shot right smartly. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Good job catching and fixing that! Much better now. -Pete (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right back at you - good job yourself on the category. That was pretty flagrant and I'm embarrassed at having missed it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Major party nominees for US Congress meet notability criteria, whether they win or lose. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2008 (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.