Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Feehan (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.

Dan Feehan (politician) (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)

Fails

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/this-minnesota-district-is-one-that-could-decide-control-of-congress https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics/cnn-house-key-races-minnesota-north-star/index.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/10/04/watch_live_president_trump_holds_maga_rally_in_rochester_minnesota.htm http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/10/05/minnesota-jim-hagedorn-dan-feehan-district-profile https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/10/10/feehan-vs-hagedorn-minnesota-1st-congressional-district-voter-guide

Htriedman (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Htriedman, Editorofthewiki, the sources listed show that the race is notable, not that Feehan is notable. A redirect, as the page was originally created, could be appropriate up to the point of the election. Cabayi (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep I believe that we should procedurally keep all candidates for election who are nominated for deletion within 30 days of the election, unless the article violates any other Wikipedia policies. If the subject does not win their election, we can revisit the discussion on November 7. --Enos733 (talk) 04:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enos733, can you point me at a discussion where this change of policy was agreed please? Cabayi (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy, but it should be common sense. At some point, the length of the AfD will span the election, which changes the notability of the subject. Also, at some point, this encyclopedia can be used as an element of a campaign. --Enos733 (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All major candidates are going to attract routine coverage in the media. That does not mean they are notable per our standards.
  WP:BLP1E applies here. AusLondonder (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unelected candidates for office are almost never notable, and Feehan is no exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: He is not merely a candidate for office, he held a position of authority in the Pentagon in addition to his other history. Bare candidacy would be insufficient, but other reliably-sourced biographical details should also be considered. And those details are presented in a neutral manner; this is not "just a campaign advert."
  Kablammo (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There's no automatic presumption of notability just because an article states that the subject held a position of authority in the Pentagon either, especially when the position the person held doesn't even have an article about it. To make that a notability claim that got him into Wikipedia in its own right as "preexisting notability for other reasons" that overrides the candidate vs. officeholder distinction in NPOL, we would need to see that he was getting media coverage in that role at the time he held it. But there's no evidence of that being shown here at all — the only source being shown for his military career is his staff profile on the Department of Defense's own self-published website about itself. Companies or organizations do not self-render their own staff notable enough for encyclopedia articles just by having staff directories on their websites, however. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you staying that the United States Department of Defense is not a reliable source on its own structure and personnel? Should we convert it to a direct quote?

Kablammo (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't say it's not a trustworthy source for the question of whether he worked there or not — but what it doesn't do is make the fact that he worked there a notability claim. To earn an encyclopedia article on the basis of having worked at the Pentagon, it would take evidence that the media cared enough to produce and publish journalism about his work at the Pentagon, not just a staff profile on the Pentagon's own website. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, Bearcat. I agree that the issue is whether he is notable apart from his candidacy. We do know that the Pentagon position he took was formerly held by Frederick E. Vollrath,[1] which apparently was the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness and Force Management, now the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. I am no expert in this area, but Feehan's DoD bio lists him as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, which I suspect is right under the Deputy (also see [2]).

The only question here is notability-- not when, or by whom, or why the article is created. And that notability should not be based on his candidacy; and that candidacy should not be counted against him.

Kablammo (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat. Since every candidate in every electoral district across the United States is always going to get campaign coverage during the election, the fact that some campaign coverage exists is not an instant free GNG pass that exempts a candidate from having to pass NPOL — every candidate would always get that exemption if it were, and then NPOL would literally have no meaning at all anymore and we'd just be Ballotpedia. To get a notability pass on campaign coverage, rather, a candidate's coverage has to explode to proportions that make him or her a special case over and above most other candidates. But that's not what Htriedman's links above are showing, either in volume or depth. Obviously he'll get an article next month if he wins the seat — but to already have an article today just for being a candidate, the test he would have to pass is not whether he's newsy today, but whether he could lose the seat next month and still have a credible reason why people would still be looking for an article about him in 2028 anyway. Bearcat (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands, fails
  WP:PROMO as it was created in September in support of his campaign. We can recreate it if he wins the election. SportingFlyer talk 09:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Tired of articles on American candidates for office. The Department of Defence is a RS for for military bios but being a captain in the Iraq War and winning the Bronze Star does not meet
  WP:NPOL. People should know by now that articles on candidates should be created in the user space or draft space and moved to the main space if and when they get elected to office. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, for the reasons expressed above. I give his candidacy no weight, but his position in the Pentagon, and his selection as a
  Kablammo (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Neither of those things are notability freebies that exempt a person from having to clear

WP:GNG on the depth of reliable source coverage given to them in those roles — a person is not guaranteed an article just for being a White House Fellow if the only source for that information is the primary source website of the White House itself, or for working at the Pentagon if the only source for that information is the Department of Defense's own self-published website itself, while media coverage about his work in those roles is lacking. The notability test is never just what an article says the subject did, but rather always depends on how much media coverage they did or didn't receive for doing what they did. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect to
  π, ν) 18:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect: per our usual practice and
  WP:POLOUTCOMES. Marquardtika (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect: to
  WP:POLOUTCOMES with unelected candidates lacking other notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2018 (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.