- 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Dan Sebring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Obscure (always losing) perennial candidate; fails WP:POLITICIAN. Orange Mike | Talk 18:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep He's received substantial coverage over the years for his campaigns. here for example. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep meets WP:GNG which trumps WP:POLITICIAN. Since this is such a major office, I'm sure that more reliable sources exist. Royalbroil 12:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's been pretty clearly established over the years that somebody like this who is not notable for themselves, and is only covered as a result of their status as a candidate, fails the requisite substantial test: coverage of them for themselves, as opposed to token "this is the other guy on the ballot" reportage, which is about the election, not the candidate. This even applies to major-party nominees for the Senate and governorships, much less the House. See the talk page history of WP:POLITICIAN in particular. I live in the district this guy keeps running for; he's totally obscure, and you only see his name every two years when he runs again, or when you drive by his house, where he's erected a permanent sign. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep' Politicians are notable for their political campaigns, not their ancillary activities. Anyone notable enough to by a major party candidate in a two-party system for a national office such as a seat in the US House of Representatives) should be consider suitable for an article. First, because even getting this far is getting far above the routine (the routine for politician being a post in a state legislature--and we accept that as notable) Second, because in effect we otherwise give an advantage to the incumbent, which is not NPOV coverage. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- reply - DGG, that's contradictory to long-standing consensus in discussions of WP:POLITICIAN in particular: people like Sebring are not notable in any way save that their names appear on a ballot, and they get token coverage no matter how quixotic their campaign. I've lived in this Congressional district for over 30 years, and I can assure you: if he wasn't willing to get his name on a ballot to get whipped (repeatedly) by Democrats in a heavily Democratic district, he would not make the paper until his obituary. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC) (unsuccessful major party nominee for the Tennessee General Assembly, and clearly not notable)
- But the Tennessee General Assembly is not the US House.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously, John; but the consensus at WP:POLITICIAN has been consistent for any office below POTUS and VP of the U.S. (or non-U.S. equivalents). Senator, Congress, Governor, etc.: if they wouldn't pass WP:BIO via non-election-related coverage, they don't get a free pass just because their names appear on a ballot. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:34, 9 October 2013 (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.