Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Hinckley

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 redirect to United States Senate election in Rhode Island, 2012. That seems to be the most consensual option. Can be recreated if he meets the normal notability criteria (i.e., substantial third party coverage). Sandstein 07:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Hinckley

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

Non-notable candidate for political office; no coverage found outside of the context of his campaign. MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: as nominated. If this individual receives significant coverage before the election or wins the election, such a deletion should be revisited. Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - a major party candidate (I'm assuming here he's the candidate and not a candidate - any idiot can be a candidate) for a national elected office. In a two party race for a national office, it's perfectly reasonable to have an article for each candidate. Rklawton (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never assume. ;-D He is the only DECLARED candidate at this time, but a glance at United States Senate election in Rhode Island, 2012 shows that there are at least five other "potential" candidates. The actual Republican candidate will be selected at a later time, --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In lieu of deletion, the article could be redirected to United States Senate election in Rhode Island, 2012. I did not do this boldly because I felt it would be controversial and the article was entitled to a full discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he is the official Republican candidate then Redirect the standard procedure in these cases is to redirect to the relevant election article until after the election when the redirect can be reverted into an article or deleted. Hinckley doesn't appear to satisfy notability criteria, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources at this time and contrary to what Rklawton says above, being a major party candidate is not grounds for keeping an article under either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. If he is not the official republican candidate (and Melanie's comments above suggest that he isn't) then delete. Valenciano (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- You are right on target. Quoting from our policy on notability: in the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate. The guideline references elected officials rather than just candidates. Rklawton (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rklawton, does that "redirect" guideline apply to EVERY declared candidate, or just to officially nominated candidates? As you noted above, any idiot can be a candidate. I'm not saying the current subject is an idiot, just that at this point he has no official role in the race. If I'm reading this correctly, the actual Republican candidate will be selected in a primary in September 2012. And if I'm reading this correctly, Mr. Hinckley is not considered to be one of the front-runners for that nomination. For that reason, I am sticking with "delete" as my preferred option. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way I'd read it, he was the candidate. My bad. Go with delete - and if he becomes the candidate, then relevant information goes into the article about the race per Notability. Rklawton (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder - the article used the word "the". I have changed it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to satisfy notability at this time, and Wikipedia does not crystal ball. Rklawton (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in Rhode Island, 2012, per above. Even people who win the nomination are not necessarily notable, as shown in the Alabama, Kansas, and Oklahoma Senate elections in 2010. This is a clear-cut case. -LtNOWIS (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have often not been held notable, but this is not common sense. A nomination for a statewide office of this stature in a two party system requires a substantial public career, and its just a matter of finding sources. I'm also somewhat disturbed by the implicit violation of NPOV, in not voering political contests equally. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't have the nomination. There's a valid argument to be made that everyone who gets an R/D Senate nomination is notable, even though we don't do that currently. But that criteria doesn't apply to Hinckley, because he isn't the nominee and probably never will be. -LtNOWIS (talk)

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.