Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sid Dinsdale


 * 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 11:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Sid Dinsdale

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a candidate who sought office, but was defeated. Though 22 sources are cited, I believe he fails WP:GNG due to the poor quality of many of the sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, seems to have gotten quite a lot of attention in national media, see http://atr.rollcall.com/is-sid-dinsdale-the-next-deb-fischer-in-nebraska/?dcz=, http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/377838/why-conservatives-have-well-founded-doubts-about-sid-dinsdale-jim-geraghty , http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/politics/conservative-pick-set-to-win-gop-primary-in-nebraska.html?hpw&rref=politics&_r=0 . There are a few hits for him in google books as well, from his role in banking sector. --Soman (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep when looking for sources I found there were plenty of on-line newspapers with whole articles on him. |There is no shortage of reliable sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 15:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 
 * A person does not qualify for an article just for being a candidate in an election — if you cannot make a strong and credible case that he was already notable enough for other things to have an article before he became a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until the election is over and he's been confirmed as its winner. Routine coverage of the election itself is not sufficient to get him over the bar in the interim — and furthermore, in its current form the article is relying far too much on primary sources rather than reliable ones. Delete, or redirect to the article on the election; no prejudice against recreation if and only if he wins the election. Bearcat (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:07, 30 May 2014 (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.