Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bridgewater

: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 Utah, 2010. There's definitely a consensus that Bridgewater does not deserve a dedicated article at present. Those arguing the opposite have not addressed the fact that the provided sources are only minor coverage, or have argued that notability is inherited from the election. Given that, no-one has explicitly argued that we shouldn't have a redirect instead of a redlink. No prejudice against recreation if he wins the primary. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

=[[Tim Bridgewater]]=

{{Not a ballot}}

:{{la|Tim Bridgewater}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bridgewater}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Tim Bridgewater}})

Declined speedy on the basis of "election" but such election was to party posts, not public office. Subsequent WP:PROD removed because of "lots of media mentions, as notable as any of Bennett's other primary challengers" - which is the very definition of a non-notable political candidate. If he wins the primary and is a party candidate for the office...that will be a different story.  Frank  {{!}}  talk  16:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment. You may want to AfD Cherilyn Eagar, Michael S. Lee, and James Russell Williams as well. They all seem to be in the same boat in this race. -LtNOWIS (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. One at a time... - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I have a feeling that the candidate with the most money to spend will win, but until he does, or garners more direct and significant independent coverage (from WP:V & WP:RS), I say return it to its former place. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Any candidate for a Senate seat is a notable public figure worthy of a wiki page. Furthermore, Cherilyn Eagar and Mike Lee, the other candidate in this race against the incumbent, have wiki pages which have not been tagged or deleted.Aworthin (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

:* Can you point to the Wikipedia policy which supports this? WP:POLITICIAN seems to contradict your interpretation of what is "worthy" of a Wikipedia page.  Frank  {{!}}  talk  16:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Bridgewater meets the primary notability criterion: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Please see the following links for mentions of Bridgewater in the media: http://www.standard.net/topics/elections/2010/03/16/candidates-begin-filing-election, http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/More-Republicans-file-to-challenge-Bennett/KM51mSKj-EODvG1mKrDmeQ.cspx, http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/86883-8-primaries-where-supporting-the-bailout-could-make-a-difference, http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14479334, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700013181/Challengers-consensus-Dump-Sen-Bennett.html, http://www.cachevalleydaily.com/news/local/87171002.html, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700015447/Meet-US-Senate-candidates-at-2-Salt-Lake-Community-College-events.html, http://www.cachevalleydaily.com/news/local/85511542.html, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700011551/Bennett-4-challengers-to-attend-Provo-GOP-event.html, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/84745-club-hits-bennett-with-more-ads. If Bridgewater's page gets deleted, the pages "Mike Lee" and "Cherilyn Eagar" should also be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aworthin (talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Aworthin (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

:*Which of those links is any more than a mention that he exists and is running for office? And, regarding the other candidates, please see WP:OSE and/or nominate any other articles if you feel they don't meet guidelines and can demonstrate that in an AFD discussion such as this one.  Frank  {{!}}  talk  17:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete: Does not pass politician guidelines. Has received lots of mentions in the media but no significant coverage to satisfy the general notability guidelines. -- BigDom 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect to United States Senate election in Utah, 2010, as the "general rule" in WP:POLITICIAN requires for candidates. If this article is kept, we are faced with the indefinite retention of a thinly sourced and spammy article about a non-notable one-time primary candidate. A redirect enables content to be preserved in case he wins, and a viable search term to the election page where relevant succinct content about the candidate can be included. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Mkativerata. RayTalk 03:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • ""keep"" Bridgewater served as the education advisor to the State of Utah, was elected as a county party chairman, was a co-founder of a public charter school in Utah, a member of the points of light foundation, has been quoted numerous times in news articles as a public figure and as a candidate. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7713931/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june05/nclb_4-14.html

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/55382

http://amsam.org/2005/05/utah-gov-defies-no-child-left-behind.html

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&la... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.154.73 (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep: This primary (and this candidate) has been recognized in the national news media. The Washington Post is calling it one of the top 10 primaries of the year. While a normal primary might not deserve the same recognition, one of such prominence does. See eg, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/the-line/friday-line-primary-colors-1.html and http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/29/2188866.aspx 161.119.42.111 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep: This information is valuable for Utahns on all four of the GOP challengers to Senator Bob Bennett, as additional information on the challengers besides their websites. This is a major National Primary due to Senator Bennett's seniority, second in importance only to Senator McCain's Primary. Utah Caucuses are held next week, March 23rd, and a Convention in May to select the GOP candidate, or the two for a Primary runoff. Tim Bridgewater is notable from a Utah Business, Industry, and Economic viewpoint. [http://www.i-caps.com/ICS/The_Team.html] --Bruce J. St.Dennis 20:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep: I recommend keeping Tim Bridgewater, Cherilyn Eagar, and Michael S. Lee until May 8, 2010 and then re-evaluating them at that time. --Archf 1 (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Whichever one actually gets the nomination should have an article. The article can be reinstated at that time by any admin--there's no need to keep it here undeleted just in case. I'm in favor of giving presumptive notability for major party candidates for national legislatures, but extending this as far as those merely running for the primary is , in my opinion, a little ridiculous. There is no possible encyclopedic interest. . I'm a regular supporter of wide coverage of political candidates, as much so as any regular WPedian, and this is way beyond anything I would consider. In view of the keep supports, the nature of this article appears to be plitical advertising, and it should be considered for a G11 speedy as such DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 21 March 2010 (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.