Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Woerner

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 merge to United States Senate election in Hawaii, 2010. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Woerner

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The guy's a scuba instructor. Just because he's filed to run in the primary doesn't make him notable. If he wins the primary, against Senator Inouye, then he can have an article. I also have concerns of COI editing. Woogee (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written in a non-biased tone, so I'm confused as to why you feel there may be a COI. Also, I would consider Andy Woerner to be notable the moment that he officially has been added as an official primary candidate, which he has been as you can see in the source that was listed. His notability is not his previous occupation, but his possible future one. Voters should have the most amount of accurate information about the candidates and as long as the information is unbiased and accurate, I see no reason to delete the article. SkiBoarder8 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2010 (EST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's purpose is not to be a campaign website. And my COI concern involves USSenateHI (talk · contribs), whose User ID clearly shows a conflict of interest when it comes to the Hawaii Senate campaign. Woogee (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete- I hate to say it, but in the USA Senators are generally for life. I wish primaries were meaningful for incumbants, but rarely are. I would suggest moving it back into user space. If there is any national attention, or if you actually win the primary, then certainly you would be notable. Now in the meanwhile help with Hawaii articles would be great. In fact, "Jack's Locker" might deserve an article, but the link on this page does not seem relevant to national political office. W Nowicki (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what relevant information to United States Senate election in Hawaii, 2010. Per WP:POLITICIAN, does not merit a standalone article at this time. Ray^Talk 03:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only content that user:USSenateHI edited was incorrect dates for Senator Inouye's service in the Senate. The original writer mistakenly put that he had "held the seat since Hawaii became a State in 1959". While Senator Inouye served in the U.S. Congress starting in 1959, he did not begin the Senate until several years later as per Dan Inouye. Although I am indeed the candidate mentioned, I did not initially see the COI, as I was merely correcting a reference mistake made by another user. I now understand the potential COI of making any edits on a page about myself and am respectfully removing myself from this discussion. User:USSenateHI 22:24, 16 March 2010 (HST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by USSenateHI (talk • contribs)

Yes, a merge into that article makes sense. Especially if a reporter or other third party notes that established politicians are too scared to run, so only newcomers dare to, etc. To clarify "conflict of interest": you do not need to totally recuse yourself. COI just means being even more careful to have a neutral point of view. Edits that correct facts are probably better than having incorrect info in the article, but should be cited to third party sources. If the creator of the article had no connection whatsoever to the campaign, then we would not have COI grounds to delete, but it still would need to pass the notability test for stand-alone article. W Nowicki (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.