- 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. j⚛e decker talk 02:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- David Fennell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary and user-generated sources, of a person whose principal claim of notability is an unsuccessful candidacy in a political party's nomination contest (a notability claim that fails WP:POLITICIAN). While there are things about his business career that might get him past our inclusion rules for businesspeople if they were reliably sourced, as it stands right now they aren't, and thus don't count toward properly demonstrating his notability at all. The article also contains a positively stunning amount of entirely unsourced personal detail for which conflict of interest editing by somebody who knows the topic personally is very nearly the only possible explanation. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if good sources can be added to properly attest that he actually meets one or more of our inclusion rules, but this version is so far from passing muster that it could technically have been speedied G11. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 19:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The article as it is presently constituted fails to meet the general notability guidelines of the Wikipedia, in that it does not demonstrate that David Fennell has received substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Also, it fails the guideline at WP:POLITICIAN, as he was an unelected political candidate. In my search for coverage, I found coverage of the election primary, but I did not find any in depth coverage of this David Fennell in independent, reliable sources. I found lots about other "David Fennells". The author is new to Wikipedia and has not grasped the concepts yet, so be kind and try not to use too much jargon. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to make this article better. I have tried to follow the rules as closely as possible, I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor, but I am learning as quickly as possible. I have edited a significant part of this article to help with flow and readability. I understand that I included too much data that was not needed in this context. In terms of general guidelines for notable people, this individual while a loosing candidate, has was able to gather a huge number of votes that can be verified by multiple sources cited. The numbers involved far out shadow other current and would be politicians included in this archive. I will continue to improve the sources as soon as possible. I have also improved the sources related to David Fennell as pertain to his business career which is also significant and should easily pass muster when fully cited according to the guidelines as I have read them. Thank you for your help, respectfully Jschimpf ( talk) 17:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- The number of votes a person got in any given election is irrelevant to their notability or lack thereof. Either they won or they didn't, and the number of votes they happened to get in the process has no bearing on anything. A person who gets 10 million votes but loses is still just a person who lost — and a person who was acclaimed to a notable office, and thus technically garnered no votes at all in the process, is still a person who held a notable office.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- The three new sources cited in the article do not add any notability. The problem with the business citation to Media Bay for notability purposes is that Media Bay is not independent from David Fennell. It is his company. See the essay
Wikipedia:Independent sources for a discussion of that term. The Wikipedia guideline at
Wikipedia:Notability says in summary Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. This means that outside sources are needed to demonstrate the "attention of the world at large". Similarly, the citation to his Master's thesis is nicely verified by his university, but adds no notability unless it is cited by a substantial number of others. I don't think that David Fennell could quality as an
WP:ACADEMIC. Lastly, it doesn't matter how many votes he received, he cannot qualify as a
WP:POLITICIAN unless he has won public office. You need to look for independent, reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of the events of his life. See
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Most venture capitalists do not receive the kind of attention that provides the notability that Wikipedia requires in a topic for an article. But one does not have to be a
Donald Trump; for example, take a look at the article about
Marc Andreessen and the sources that are cited about him. --
Bejnar (
talk) 21:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback. I seems as thought the guidelines are justifiably vague when considering the notability of a candidate, winning or losing. In terms of significance on the political front, I will work to gather more sources related to notability. I was under some impression from the guidelines that it would be somewhat of a given that a politician that earned a very large number of votes would obviously have substantial notability among their constituents as well as in the media. I will cite additional sources that I hope will help clear that issue up as soon as possible. He certainly qualifies under "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", and I will help support that with additional citations. In terms of the business and the academic side, those references were put there to establish general credibility and further inform about a person who continues to be politically active in California. Respectfully Jschimpf ( talk) 02:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- The three new sources cited in the article do not add any notability. The problem with the business citation to Media Bay for notability purposes is that Media Bay is not independent from David Fennell. It is his company. See the essay
Wikipedia:Independent sources for a discussion of that term. The Wikipedia guideline at
Wikipedia:Notability says in summary Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. This means that outside sources are needed to demonstrate the "attention of the world at large". Similarly, the citation to his Master's thesis is nicely verified by his university, but adds no notability unless it is cited by a substantial number of others. I don't think that David Fennell could quality as an
WP:ACADEMIC. Lastly, it doesn't matter how many votes he received, he cannot qualify as a
WP:POLITICIAN unless he has won public office. You need to look for independent, reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of the events of his life. See
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Most venture capitalists do not receive the kind of attention that provides the notability that Wikipedia requires in a topic for an article. But one does not have to be a
Donald Trump; for example, take a look at the article about
Marc Andreessen and the sources that are cited about him. --
Bejnar (
talk) 21:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- The number of votes a person got in any given election is irrelevant to their notability or lack thereof. Either they won or they didn't, and the number of votes they happened to get in the process has no bearing on anything. A person who gets 10 million votes but loses is still just a person who lost — and a person who was acclaimed to a notable office, and thus technically garnered no votes at all in the process, is still a person who held a notable office.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I hope you are now aware that with regards to Wikipedia notability that "earned a very large number of votes would obviously have substantial notability" is not true. Also with regard to coverage remember that mere mention is not relevant for notability, it needs to be significant coverage. -- Bejnar ( talk) 16:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete While this may be a postion of the level that winning the nomination might confer notability, someone who looses the nomination is not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Unelected politician, thus failing the Special Notability Guideline high bar for these folks. You pull off all the ordinary political campaign coverage and you're left with a failure of GNG. It is a pity, however, to lose such deathless unsourced prose as: "The kitchen table also served for years as a lab bench where Fennell taught his son to solder Heathkits and build the family oscilloscope, television, and radios. The table was famously covered with burns from the use of the soldering iron. It was in these early years that Fennell learned technology products were man made, not magic, and could be learned and built. Steve Jobs built the same Heathkits in the 1970s and cited them as the basis of his knowledge of modern technology." Ad infinitum, ad nauseam... Carrite ( talk) 04:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I'm sorry, but I just don't find the coverage necessary to meet our requirements WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Our test for notability is that he received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. That does not appear to be true of his entrepreneurial activities or of his run for office. Incidentally, the following statement in the article is not true: Fennell sought the Republican Party nomination for Lieutenant Governor of California in the 2014 primary election. He lost to Ron Nehring. Actually California does not have such a thing as a "Republican Party nomination" any more. The truth is that he ran in the state's open primary, finishing a distant third and thus not qualifying for the November ballot. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- 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.