Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dickson


 * 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. Consensus is that the subject is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion; content issues can be dealt with without deletion. AfD is not for cleanup. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Kenneth Dickson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable California politician who has so far only been elected to a school board. He is now running for a seat in the state senate; article reads as though produced for campaign purposes. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE, has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: You obviously have a long and distinguished record of contributions, so I'm willing to be corrected here -- but what am I missing, exactly? He was a lieutenant colonel, but that hardly makes him Patton; he on his town's school board fercryinoutloud, he's got nothing in major news . . . and this article contains totally unencyclopedic lines like "Judge Turrentine told the North County Times that Dickson did a 'great job' as a law clerk"; and "Col. Rakowsky said that Dickson was an expert in contract law, and a hard worker, noting, 'He was very much a team player, always asking, "What else can I do to help?"'"  I mean, "[His] children graduated as valedictorians from Murrieta Valley High School, in 1995 and 1996"?  One or two fawning pieces in the local press aside, I don't see anything at all to indicate that Kenneth Dickson is a [m]ajor local political figure[] who ha[s] received significant press coverage" per WP:POLITICIAN.  And you've got to admit that this article reads like complete campaign advertising . . . so really, what am I missing? --Glenfarclas (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC).  Edited to add:  my point isn't that the article needs rewriting; it's that stripping away the article's tone and flourishes emphasizes the overall non-notability of this local political candidiate.
 * The article satisfies point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN. Cirt (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is extremely well cited with reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. As Cirt points out above, that satisfies much of the general notability guidelines outlined in WP:N. Most of the sources are from reliable news organizations, which is satisfactory according to the section of WP:Reliable dealing with those sources. Regarding Glenfarclas' comment above about "major news" coverage, that policy doesn't state all the sources have to be The New York Times or The Washington Post or some other national paper, just that it be a mainstream media source. And furthermore, I don't think the fact that this article is of more regional interest than national interest should preclude it anyway. This is a comprehensive, paperless encyclopedia, and I think it should have more of these articles, not less. And finally, any problems with the encyclopedic writing of the article can be improved as we go along, or via a peer review... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  14:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, although he's not held high enough office to qualify as a politician, he easily passes the GNG. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets notability per WP:GNG due to the references provided in the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is as if written by a promotional team. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a content complaint that could be addressed on the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever, its a fluff piece to advertise the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If there's a tone issue, then that's something to fix. Here we're considering if it meets inclusion criteria and is notable. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tone issue? The content is written as if an advert and enlarges the notability of this person, sorry if you are the writer..but I support the nominator, delete promo fluff piece . Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2009 (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.