Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Hulburd

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. Per substantial coverage in reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hulburd

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

Campaign-style profile of an unelected political candidate with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Was previously tagged for prod; references here are entirely to his own personal campaign site and to trivial, non-substantial coverage which mentions him, but fails to be about him as such. Certainly he can come back if he wins — but until then, simply being a candidate is not a valid encyclopedic claim of notability. For the time being, delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep My preference is to regard major-party candidates for national-level offices as notable. That said, his chances of winning are quite low, so that preference is not terribly strong in this case. Ray^Talk 15:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to clarify my own position on this, I obviously wouldn't question a major-party candidate for national or statewide offices such as the presidency, a Senate seat, a state governorship, etc. — for one thing, the scope and volume of coverage that such a person will get in the campaign is likely to establish notability, and for another, a person is highly unlikely to win a major party's nomination for such an office without already being notable enough for an encyclopedia article anyway. But I don't think either of those conditions applies to a candidate for the House of Representatives in an individual congressional district (or to a candidate for a seat in a state legislature), because the person simply isn't relevant to anybody outside that one congressional district unless and until they actually win it.

It's important to understand that a federal office doesn't automatically equate to a national office. The presidency is a national office, because the candidates are directly accountable to every voter in the United States, but a candidate for the House of Representatives is only accountable to voters in one single congressional district out of 435 nationwide. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All he has won so far is an uncontested primary. The article is heavily footnoted so it looks impressive, but most of the refs are duplicative or self-referential. Most of the press he has gotten is routine political handicapping, with a few mentions in stories about his far more notable opponent. Per the consensus at WP:POLITICIAN that is not enough to qualify as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the candidate reaches the threshold of notability. I have seen Hulburd on a bunch of the local newscasts and it looks like there is a lot of stories outside the congressional district in the national political press and on cable news shows. This article was created a few months ago but deleted fairly quickly, now there seems to be more news stories being published every day, can anyone else help keeping this article up-to-date? Rjbmesa (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article shows significant coverage in RS. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems like Hulburd keeps getting more national coverage from RS, here is link to interview with Chris Matthews on Hardball: http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/quayle-s-opponent-sizes-up-midterm-fight/17yj6stme Rjbmesa (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep basically agree with Bearcat except that I do extent it to major party candidates to the HofR, for they get substantial regional attention-- & especially in a year like this when the balance is uncertain, each of them matters nationally also. I certainly would not extend it to a state legislature. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 17 September 2010 (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.