Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Hekman

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. postdlf (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Hekman[edit]

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

Campaign-style biography of an unelected candidate in a political party primary, with no properly sourced indication of real notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Previously prodded, but was deprodded by creator after adding two trivial/minor sources. If he actually wins the Republican nomination next year, then he'll probably qualify to come back — but he's most certainly not entitled to use Wikipedia to try to promote his candidacy in the meantime.

Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article seems to cover a newcomer politician, however wikipedia requires notability even if he is new and so far he didn't break out or made anything relevant per WP:POLITICIAN. And wikipedia is not a mill for every single politic candidate. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:POLITICIAN since he has never been elected to a high office, and no other claim of notability is made. Cullen328 (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above; no apparent notability. Obviously, that all changes when and if Mr. Hekman wins an election. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on a search of news sources, he's a pretty major figure in Michigan. He was the head of a conservative Christian organization and received news coverage as such. His candidacy for the U.S. Senate race has been the subject of non-trivial feature stories in every major newspaper in the State of Michigan. See, e.g., The Detroit News, Detroit Free Press, The Grand Rapids Press, Lansing State Journal, Rochester Citizen. The article as it currently stands is unsatisfactory, as it reads like a resume or web site promoting his candidacy. That's reason to substantially revise but not to delete. I'll take a crack at eliminating the inappropriate "resume"-type content. Cbl62 (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now re-written the article. I have removed the promotional "resume" content, and it is now limited to sourced material. Aside from articles about his candidacy, his work as a conservative Christian activist in the 1990s received coverage in the national media, including USA Today and Los Angeles Times. This is no longer the same article that above ediotrs voted to "Delete." Cbl62 (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the efforts by Cbl62 to improve the article, but the fundamental problems remain. As an unelected political candidate, he fails WP:POLITICIAN If the claim of notability is as a conservative Christian activist, then we need in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Material from his website or his church's website is not sufficient. An opinion piece about divorce in USA Today by Gary Bauer clearly fails that standard. The Los Angeles Times piece (hidden behind a pay wall) is also about divorce, and my guess is that Hekman is quoted in passing on the subject of divorce. Or does Cbl62 claim that this article discusses Hekman himself in enough depth to enable an encyclopedic article about him as a Christian activist to be written? I still feel that this article should be deleted, and he can be discussed in an article about the Michigan 2012 U. S. Senate race instead. There, readers can learn about all the candidates rather than just one non-notable candidate. Cullen328 (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to forget to mention the Ludington Daily News, but it is a passing one-sentence mention that fails as the sort of in-depth coverage needed to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand the criticism of the article as it was. But the POV and sourcing issues have been resolved. And your reliance on the automatic inclusionary standard for certain elected officials/judges under WP:POLITICIAN ignores the overarching general notability standard reflected in the last clause of the guideline that "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." In this case, Hekman has been the subject of precisely such coverage with feature stories about him in every major newspaper in the State of Michigan, including The Detroit News, Detroit Free Press, The Grand Rapids Press, and the Lansing State Journal. I'm not an advocate of the guy's politics, but he pretty clearly meets the general notability standard IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, the fact is that he fails both criteria (from general and from the specific area) about notability. Because he is limitedly known in Michigan, but for general notability he must be a very well known person with several works published (even if he is limited to Michigan, but is known outside of it for his works, what in this case he is not). Many sources about him only refers about his divorce case, not him as a Christian activist. In sum, he has not enough coverage to own an article in wikipedia. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 15:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Tim Beals, primary author of this article, is a press agent for the Randy Hekman campaign. See this press release for evidence: [1]. This user is a single purpose account with a major undisclosed financial conflict of interest. This user's only goal on Wikipedia seems to be to advance the candidacy of Randy Hekman, rather than to improve the encyclopedia. In an edit a few hours ago, he deleted a link in the Hekman article to Debbie Stabenow, the incumbent United States Senator from Michigan. This was a totally biased edit, in my opinion. Cbl62's argument that Hekman is notable because various Michigan newspapers (prompted by Tim Beal's press releases) covered the announcement of Hekman's candidacy would eviscerate our consensus described at WP:POLITICIAN that unelected candidates are non-notable unless they gain notability for significant and unrelated accomplishments. Accepting this argument and keeping this article would open the floodgates to thousands of promotional articles about political candidates. Let's keep the consensus that, in general and with a few rare exceptions, politicians become notable only when they are actually elected to high office. It is a clear and rational standard. Cullen328 (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2011 (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.