Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Patrick (Texas politician) (2nd nomination)

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 Patrick (Texas politician)

The result was keep per

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

Obscure figure with little to none references have turned this article into an advertisement. Kibbled bits (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sitting state senator in a district which includes a major city, published author, television and radio broadcaster who has appeared on national radio and television programs in either guest or host roles. Inherent notability (at least to me) seems to be established. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems notable enough to me.--Habashia (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sitting state senators are inherently notable per guidelines for politicians. Feel free to cleanup the POV-ness if you like. DarkAudit (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Members and former members of state/provincial legislatures are notable per
  WP:BIO#Politicians. Clean the article up as necessary. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Seems notable. Dhshah (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per extremely explicit sentence on the subject in
  talk) 05:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete most of the content is without citations. If it's not deleted then I will be force to do heavy cleanup  :( --Kibbled bits (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is, with respect, an absurd reason for deletion. Besides that, nobody says you have to do it. I mean, we'd certainly appreciate it if you did, but it's not like it's automatically your responsibility.

talk) 05:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

To me it is not. I do not think this figure is very noteworthy and most of all I don't think being a state senator (which there has to be well into the hundreds?) or a state rep (ditto) automatically qualifies you for an article. I do think there are issues with people of little interest being populated with misinformation, which IMHO is worse than any information at all. --Kibbled bits (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BIO seems pretty clear on the notability of office holders. Dan Patrick passes. Active politicians are always a problem. That's why there is an "activepol" flag. It just takes more vigilance by responsible editors. The Dan Patrick article seems more lopsided than unverifiable. Balance is a surmountable problem. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• There wasn't a tag. There is now. You're welcome. (And thanks to the followup editor who moved it to the correct spot.) :) DarkAudit (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the wiki-gnome who made the follow-up edit, you are welcome. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Kibbled, if you want to change the guideline that state-level elected office-holders are notable, you might want to take it up at
  talk) 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Per above, members of state, provincial or national legislatures (current or ex-members) are automatically notable per WP:BIO.--JForget 01:49, 6 March 2008 (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.