Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Feldkamp (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Jim Feldkamp
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. While this was kept in the original deletion discussion back in 2008, Wikipedia's standards for the notability of politicians, and the degree and depth of reliable source coverage that it actually takes, are much stricter now than they were a decade ago and nothing here satisfies the standards that apply today. The main notability hook is that he was an unsuccessful political candidate, but that's sourced only to local coverage in his own district -- but local coverage of local elections is expected to exist, and thus falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot vault the candidate over WP:GNG in and of itself. The only other piece of reliable source coverage here is about him being recalled to US Navy duty after the election, and that's still a local newspaper in the district where he was a candidate. All of the other citations here are to deadlinked primary sources such as his own website and raw tables of election results, with the exception of a single New York Times citation that completely fails to mention Feldkamp at all, and which is being cited only to support a tangential fact about one of his campaign donors. Neither the sourcing here, nor the substance of what it's supporting, is enough to make him more notable than the norm for an unelected candidate. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete' Back in 2008 when this article was kept it was somewhat thought that candidates for US House of Representatives were notable if nominees for major parties. Today we have recognized that such is not the case. There is not enough coverage of him to justify keeping an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2016 (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.