Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Dixon (politician)

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. Consensus is candidates need to be notable beyond from the coverage generated by their race if they are not elected. Dixon was not, and did not. Star Mississippi 18:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Dixon (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of a politician notable only as an unelected candidate for office. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while a candidate must either (a) have some other preexisting claim of notability that would already have gotten them into Wikipedia on those other grounds anyway, or (b) show some credible evidence that their candidacy should be viewed as much, much more significant than other people's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. But this shows neither of those things, and is referenced mainly to primary sources (raw tables of election results and candidate FEC filings, etc.) that are not support for notability at all -- there's only a very small smattering of the purely expected local election coverage within his own state, which is not enough coverage to make a non-winning candidate permanently notable just for being a candidate.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just three hits of run of the mill election coverage for WP:GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Carolina. Bearcat (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep, how many times have you repeated this tired spiel? Wikipedia should be a resource, the sum of all human knowledge as Jimmy Wales himself put it, and deliberately keeping out information about newsworthy individuals through nominating this article for deletion is doing a disservice to the entire world. Kingofthedead (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - he got National attention in 2016 for his Senate race. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Failed political candidate, non-notable otherwise. Minor coverage for the 2016 campaign, nothing I see worth putting in an article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm honestly of the mind that this fails GNG. I'm also going to start leaving the essay "An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing" in the hopes that it stops these efforts to preserve candidate articles.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2022 (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.