Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Hedgepeth

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hedgepeth

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

I previously speedied this, but there's at least some assertion this time and it's not pure advertising, so bringing to AfD. The mention from the Washington Post is trivial and in passing, and does not cover the subject of the article in any depth. I can't find anything that does, so as far as I can tell, this article is unsustainable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The initial article from Hip Hop Republican is not an advertisement, but a profile of the candidate. For those who are interested in learning about the candidate, the profile of Mr. Hedgepeth details personal information about him.
Dave Hedgepeth is a political candidate and therefore it would be advantageous to both residents of Washington DC and Wikipedia viewers to have a page on him. While the coverage of him in the media is not comparable to a movie star or a candidate that became a living sensation overnight (see Alvin Greene), he has appeared on local television, the radio and been mentioned in the printed media as well. I sincerely hope you reconsider and I promise to continue to update the page with objective information about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonsmandel (talk • contribs) 21:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not about rectifying what you perceive to be unfair political coverage. It is about systematizing existing human knowledge, already acknowledged by the world at large and properly published outside of Wikipedia. We don't write biographies in the way that you are doing. For reasons that are well-known and that one would have had to have actually tried fairly hard to avoid learning over the past few years, we insist that biographies are written properly. You are not writing properly if you cannot show proof to readers, as you write, that, say, this person went to the schools that you claim, or was proud to do various things. (How do we know xe was proud? Who researched this and recorded the fact? What proof outside of potentially self-serving autobiography do you have of anything claimed about this person?) If the world has not already independently and reliably documented a person's life and works in depth outside of Wikipedia, that person cannot have xyr life and works documented in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I quite understand how "Uncle G" can accuse my page to have been written improperly when 1) he himself does not use correct spelling or grammar and 2) numerous sites do not cite every single detail. I do admit using the word "proud" was a mistake, but I think it would be a bigger mistake to remove the page based on this subjective gauge you all are using on the candidate's coverage in the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.252.98 (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Major WP:COI issues here as well. VQuakr (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G and VQuakr. The subject fails because under our notability guidelines, a politician must normally be elected first to a major office, before being considered notable for the reason of being involved in politics. Candidates for office are rarely considered automatically eligible for inclusion, barring special circumstances. Even if he were elected to this office, it is not entirely clear that he'd be considered notable per se. While legislators at the state and national level, and mayors of large cities, are considered notable, I can't recall any consensus about DC councillors. If he got elected Mayor of Washington, DC, then he would be considered notable. Based on past precedent at AfD, city councillors, even of large cities, are almost never notable -- unless they are at large, act as president pro tempore, or get substantial media coverage, for example, Harvey Milk or Carol Schwartz. A quick search of sources finds nothing that proves notability. Hedgepeth fails, for now, at being notable enough. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 7 July 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.