Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Hoefling

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom_Hoefling

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

Very non-notable KYBrad53 (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep no deletion rationale. "Very non-notable" is not a valid rationale.--TM 10:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Presidential nominee who appeared on several ballots in 2012 election. Also has been written about in reliable sources.--Cjv110ma (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012#American Independent Party. Subject has received some significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources therefore it can be said that the subject has passed notability as defined by WP:GNG and/or WP:ANYBIO. That being said the subject received the majority of that coverage due to a single event, and thus falls under WP:BLP1E. Furthermore, the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. Therefore per WP:POLOUTCOMES a redirect is prescribed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk)

20:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep subject is notable based on coverage received combined with the fact of his being a ballot-qualified presidential candiate as well as founder and national chair of a national political party.--Ddcm8991 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News and book searches bring up no reliable sources for the subject of this AfD, where the subject receives in-depth significant coverage about himself. Just because the subject founded a political party does not make the subject automatically notable per WP:NOTINHERITED.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012#American Independent Party per RightCowLeftCoast. Unless a losing candidate passes notability under WP:GNG beyond a particular election, a redirect to a page about the particular election for candidates for national office or significant subnational offices is an appropriate action. Any information in the article can be merged or incorporated into the main election-related article (in this case United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012). Enos733 (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep It appears that every other Presidential candidate that qualified for the ballot in 2012 in multiple states has its own page. A keep at this point would be consistent. In general, I do think redirects are appropriate for losing candidates. Enos733 (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per RCLC. Ray^Talk 12:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:POLOUTCOMES: "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success." Hoefling is national chairman of a registered national level party. If that does not make him a "leader" of that party, then what does? Also, a de facto consensus seems to have emerged over the past several years that being a presidential nominee - particularly one attaining any degree of confirmed ballot status in the general election - of a notable party denotes notability.--JayJasper (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If so, that's news to me, and I've been off and on at AFD for the past 5 years. I believe there's no such consensus, which is why WP:POLITICIAN makes no mention of leaders of third parties. They're notable if there is significant coverage of them in secondary sources independent of the subject. Ray^Talk 17:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I base that assertion on several afd discussions which have taken place in recent years regarding presidential nominees, virtually all of which resulted in "Keep" based largely on the fact that the candidate was nominee of a national party and qualified for at least one ballot. Besides, Hoefling is a national chairman of a party which has fielded candidates who have appeared on multiple state ballots (thus making it a "national level party") which would seem to denote notability based on the statement I quoted from WP:POLOUTCOMES. Note also that while third parties are not specifically mentioned in WP:POLITICIAN, they are not specifically excluded either.--JayJasper (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not only was Hoefling on the ballot in multiple states in 2012, if write-in access is counted, he theoretically could have won the election. Furthermore, I agree completely with JayJasper and base this "vote" on his reasoning.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's notable enough. He won nearly as many votes as Rocky Anderson and is chairman of a political party that has a decent sized wiki article. - ngfan1

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.