Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendell Craig Williams

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 no consensus. As always, there's no problem with launching a merge discussion on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wendell Craig Williams[edit]

Failed 2008 candidate for Congress. Might have lots of election-related coverage, but fails notability requirements under WP:POLITICIAN. HoboJones (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failed candidate which does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and does not have significant reliable coverage outside the elections by independent sources to pass the general notability guidelines.--Boffob (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2008#District 7 as with other non notable candidates. This article was redirected prior to editor's creation.TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare) _]} 01:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —HoboJones (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —HoboJones (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep election related coverage is all that's necessary. We have in the past not covered defeated candidates because we usually couldnt find the coverage. Now that we can, the GNG applies, and it shows him notable. DGG (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : that contradicts WP:POLITICIAN, any candidate from a major party in any election anywhere will have local coverage during that election, no matter what. Those who don't get elected usually have no accomplishments of significance to pass WP:N, and Wikipedia is not news, thus being in the papers during the election is not sufficient. Failed candidates also often fall within WP:BLP1E.--Boffob (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major party candidate for national elected office in a protracted campaign. These are, or should be, notable, and recent AfDs have definitely been trending that way. There is always coverage for such things, and they almost always go beyond trivial coverage about electoral positions to serious coverage of a person's career and prior accomplishments (not always the case for lower level offices). RayAYang (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Merge into United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2008: losing an election does not automatically make one notable. I'm not convinced he's had sufficient coverage from reliable, third-party sources to pass the notability test; particularly suspect is the fact that he doesn't seem to have received any attention outside of the election coverage, which suggests that he isn't really notable in his own right. There is the endorsement from The Bulletin (newspaper) - but most newspapers endorse plenty of candidates each election, many of whom will lose, and does that make them all notable? Terraxos (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2008 (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.