Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Michels


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Tim Michels

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I declined a speedy on this because of the length of time this has been up. I cannot see that it passes WP:BIO, but would prefer a consensus on this. Peridon (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The subject of the article, Tim Michels received significant press coverage in 2004 when he was the Republican nominee for Senate. Wikipedia is intended to be a historic encyclopedia, not merely a website for current events.  Just because Michels is not receiving significant coverage now, because he is not currently a candidate does not mean that the article does not pass WP:BIO.  The article does clearly pass WP:BIO because the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article, even though that coverage may not be recent.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was aware that he had been a candidate - however being a candidate doesn't confer notability. If it did, we'd be over-run with everyone from the GOP down to the Deadwood Gulch Pioneers Party (three members, one candidate). Peridon (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am aware that being a candidate in and of itself does not confer notability, but Michels was a major party nominee for U.S. Senate in a race that had been considered to be close enough that the NRSC spent a significant amount in support of Michels. The national media did cover Michel's campaign in 2004.  I don't think the Deadwood Gulch Pioneers Party got any serious media coverage. --Tdl1060 (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete, at the present time the subject does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. It can be argued that the subject may pass WP:GNG due to the senatorial election, however at present time the article needs expansion with those references to support a keep based on that. However, if the article is not to stand, a sub-section can be made and the verified content can be merged into United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2004.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing my opinion to Merge & Redirect, although the subject passes WP:GNG, the subject still fails WP:POLITICIAN, and the notability is related to the election, so the subject more appropriately falls under WP:1E, and the subject does not pass WP:EFFECT. Therefore it is my present opinion that the verified content by moved to United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2004, and a redirect be left in its place. If the subject becomes notable for other things other than the election, than the article can always be WP:SPLIT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep passes GNG - multiple independent reliable sources per Tdl1060. He was a major party candidate for one of the largest political positions in the United States. Plenty of other reliable sources exist and improvement / cleanup wanted is not reason to delete. First page search engine results includes old speculation that he might run for governor of the state from the most influential talk radio station in the state .  Royal broil  03:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I added more citations. There are dozens of hits while searching for him at the New York Times to pick a major newspaper. I'm insulted to see a speedy nomination by an experienced politically-minded administrator on one of the big names in state politics from only 8 years ago. Michels was all over the news! It's easy to find independent sources for him. And I'm not a fan and I dislike politics.  Royal broil  04:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The citations that were added improved the article. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: Remember that while an article being here for a WP:LONGTIME is not necessarily a reason to keep - however, at the same time, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2004
 * Just to remind folks of the major criterion for notability for politicians
 * "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."


 * Although Royalbroil and I have both tried to beef up the sourcing of this article, there really is not that much out there about this guy. I had to wade through several pages of search results to find two hits of relevance. Let's face it - this article can be summarized in two short sentences: 1) Tim Michels is a businesmann. 2) He ran for the Senate in 2004 and lost. He's never done another notable thing in his life worth writing about. (Being one of several vice-presidents at a family-run corporation is not notable.)


 * I suggest we merge this article with United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2004, as much of the content in it is a duplicate of what is in that article. Mesconsing (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep minimal biographical detail was obtained from election publicity. It passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN, and as Bushranger points out notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY.  Pontificator (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Though being an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability in all cases, when the case is being the unelected candidate of a major party in a two party system for a national level office, especially a national level office as selective and influential as the US Senate, it does indeed guarantee it, for it will always bring major press coverage and be of permanent historical interest. How anyone can have thought it a speedy passes my understanding--it is at the very least a plausible claim to importance or significance.  DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 10 July 2012 (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.