- 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 redirect to United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014. Split between delete and redirect. Applying delete-first-then-redirect as per jurisprudence the panda ₯’ 10:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sean Haugh ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Simply running for office as a perennial candidate does not establish credibility. YouTube is not a reliable source, and very few articles mention candidate's influence in the races he has run in. Gage ( talk) 06:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN: only 1 independent source provided and a search turns up barely routine coverage of a non-notable candidate for office. Tiller54 ( talk) 15:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
It appears that some anti-Haugh people are trying to take down his information from Wikipedia... They already removed his name and photo from the Senate election page, now they want to remove his personal page altogether? Ha! Bias, much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.188.196.28 ( talk) 16:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Clearly does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Non-notable.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 20:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)- Per WP:POLITICIAN, a candidate is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate — and that goes double for a candidate whose article is sourced mainly to YouTube videos. With extremely rare exceptions, politicians qualify for articles on here in only two scenarios: (a) they've actually won election to a notable office, or (b) they were already notable enough for other things that even if you took the candidacy out of the equation entirely, they'd still qualify for an article under a different inclusion rule. It's not "anti-Haugh" to say so, either, as he doesn't have a "right" to coverage on here — our job when it comes to politicians is to keep articles about people who've actually held notable offices, not everybody who's ever run for one. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 01:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Why not keep until November? The fact remain that Sean is a legal candidate for a major office in a state where his party is legally recognized. I have just emailed his campaign manager asking her to send me some links to good cites so I can improve tis article as yes, the youtube videos are not good sources. Eric Cable | Talk 14:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia is not a venue for aspiring politicians (or aspiring anything else, either) to advertise their desire to become notable; it's a venue for neutral, third party information about people who have already cleared the notability bar. Nobody's denied that he's a legal candidate for a major office in a state where his party is legally recognized — but being a legal candidate for a major office in a state where his party is legally recognized is not, in and of itself, a claim of notability that earns a person an entry in an encyclopedia.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Bearcat, how are you? Haven't seen you for a while. So it's the policy of Wikipedia to suppress candidates who are "Not Notable"?
Eric Cable |
Talk 12:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's the policy of Wikipedia that any topic that is "not notable" (regardless of whether it's a candidate, a company, an inanimate object or whatever) is not entitled to a Wikipedia article. It's not "suppression"; it's a question of what an encyclopedia is or isn't for, and helping people who haven't already passed our inclusion rules to promote themselves in their bids to potentially do so in the future is one of those "not for" things. Bearcat ( talk) 17:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- I am working on this article. Sean has been a major activist in North Carolina for over a dozen years. So far I have about 20 newspaper articles about him. I ask that everyone "cool thier jets" and give me some time to improve the article. Thanks. Eric Cable | Talk 12:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Bearcat, how are you? Haven't seen you for a while. So it's the policy of Wikipedia to suppress candidates who are "Not Notable"?
Eric Cable |
Talk 12:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia is not a venue for aspiring politicians (or aspiring anything else, either) to advertise their desire to become notable; it's a venue for neutral, third party information about people who have already cleared the notability bar. Nobody's denied that he's a legal candidate for a major office in a state where his party is legally recognized — but being a legal candidate for a major office in a state where his party is legally recognized is not, in and of itself, a claim of notability that earns a person an entry in an encyclopedia.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014. Doesn't appear to reach GNG or POLITICIAN. With respect to GNG, [1] seemed plausible for meeting half of that minimum requirement, but everything else I could find (via Gweb, Gnews, Gbooks, and Highbeam) was passing and/or not reliable/neutral as a source.) Additional sources welcomed, as always, and I will be happy to evaluate any sources actually provided. -- j⚛e decker talk 20:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I am actually finding a lot of newspaper articles going back a dozen years. Lots of good stuff about how he spearheaded the effort to keep the Libertarian Party on the ballot in North Carolina. Eric Cable | Talk 00:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014. The sourcing is horrible, and candidates themselves are generally not considered notable enough. If by some freak event he wins, then the article can be restored easily enough. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 02:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
- Redirect per Joe Decker and Lankiveil. Re-create if enough reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject can be found.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 15:57, 31 May 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.