Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Fincher


 * 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. This AFD was not listed on the main page so did not receive significant contributions, but even so the consensus is clear. (The subject of the article has since been elected, making him indisputably notable, so relisting this discussion would be pointless.) Robofish (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Fincher

 * – ( View AfD )

Fails WP:POLITICIAN ""Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Arbor832466 (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep Fincher's race is rated a "Toss Up" by many independent campaign follower, including CQ. Fincher's campaign is receiving national attention because of the Toss Up rating. Please note that Arbor832466 has been attempting to delete each and every Republican challenger article on Wikipedia. Also, Arbor832466 has written that the standard that she is attempting to impose does not apply to Stephene Moore. Arbor832466 voted to "Keep" Moore's article even though Moore's campaign is not listed as one of the top 100 races in the U.S. and Moore is not in serious contention. However, Arbor832466 wants to delete Fincher's article even though Fincher has a Top 100 campaign.--InaMaka (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * CQ Politics has rated this campaign "Leans Republican." Please note: CQ Politics District Profile TN 8th.  Also, the Terrance Poll has placed Fincher ahead of his Democratic rival.  Please see: The Terrance Group poll from August 2010.  Fincher is part of a Gospel group that makes over 100 performs annually and he is qualified for that accomplishment alone.  Please see:  Most recent tour schedule dates of The Fincher Family.  There is NO reason to delete this article other than attempt to censor a political candidate during an important election.--InaMaka (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on significant independent media coverage, as you articulated so well in the Stephene Moore discussion (which is also a "top 100 race"), not on which candidate is polling ahead. If he is notable as a gospel singer, then the article should be about that. Arbor832466 (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is not about censorship. Fincher is part of a Top 100 campaign.  Fincher's campaign has received national attention.  Please see:  Wikipedia is not censored.--InaMaka (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are lots of candidates who are part of Top 100 campaigns (I assume you're referring to CQ or Charlie Cook?) who don't merit their own articles. If he has received national attention, then by all means, add it into his article. I'm not trying to censor anything. Please stop accusing me of it. Arbor832466 (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as you are attempting to censor (which the attempt to delete this article is) then I will point it out. Fincher qualifies under two different independent rules. Period.  You have not attempted to follow any of the rules of Wikipedia when it comes to censorship.  You are NOT attempting to find sources to keep the massive amount of articles you want deleted.  You are not voicing your concerns.  You are just saying, "Delete!!!!"  You are not commenting on talk pages.  You are not doing a search of the Internet to check and see if there are article out there to support an article.  When I or someone else objects you simply state "Well, go find the information yourself".  And that is not what the rule of Wikipedia demand.  The rules are very clear that you should attempt to preserve information and you should work to improve first.  You are NOT doing that.  You are just blinding calling for the deletion of everything in your path.  It is censorship.  Pure and simple.--InaMaka (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't have time to start a discussion because you jumped down my throat before I got the chance. Have a good day! Arbor832466 (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No. You didn't have time for a discussion because you were too busy nominating over 20 articles of Republicans for deletion.  There is NO WAY that you were using your time to review each article in a NEUTRAL manner.  You were just marking them all delete.  Do you even know what are all of the articles that you are trying to have destroyed?  You need to go back and attempt to review each and every one of those articles individually.  If they are found wanting then you need to mark them "MERGE" into the article about the race.  You told the admin on your talk page that you have done that, but you have not done that.  This Fincher article is an example of an article where you are still screaming "DELETE" even though Fincher is ahead in each and every poll, is marked as the favorite by most independent observers (Charlie Cook and Real Clear Politics) or at least Toss Up by Rothenburg. And the race is being covered by ALL of the major national news sources (Washington Post, New York Times) and even by international sources.  Please see this article by The Economist from London:  Tennessee's 8th district, Serving the Lord, And running hard for Congress, September 16, 2010.  Your attempts to delete the articles about Republican challengers is similar to Sherman's March to the Sea.--InaMaka (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, InaMaka, that's enough. I am happy to discuss this with you here, on my talk page or elsewhere, but not until you are finished with your tantrum. Thanks. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to discuss. This is a perfect example of where there is absolutely no way to justify eliminating this article.  Stephen Fincher qualifies for TWO independent reasons.  ONE:  as a credible Congressional candidate who is leading the race, has the support of national party and national organizations, who is in a Top 100 race (listed a leans Republican in BOTH Real Clear Politics and Charlie Cook reports) and TWO: as a member of a gospel group that peforms over 100 times a year.  You did not attempt to fix the article.  All you did was mark it "DELETE".  You did not even try to fix it. You made no attempts to look for articles or information on Fincher.  If you had done a simple Google search you would have seen the tons of information in the national media about Fincher and the campaign.  But you didn't. That is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.--InaMaka (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep for now I think the best way to deal with candidates who may be notable only if the win office is to keep these types of pages until after the election. Should he lose, relevant information can be merged into an article on the actual election. AniMate  00:06, 7 October 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.