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 keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Meffert[edit]

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

This is an article for a person who is a candidate for office but otherwise lacks notability. WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3 addresses this point specifically, that just being a nominee does not automatically confer notability. This article also fails the general notability guidelines, as the scant coverage is purely local...Public Radio, the local NBC affiliate, and the Minn Post. The cqpolitics.co link is about the incumbent, with 2 Meffert name-drops about cash on-hand. Routine coverage. Per the further explanation at WP:POLITICIAN on what to do with non-notables, a merger to the appropriate district page is a viable option to deletion. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least temporarily. I did not do any independent research, so I can't confirm or deny any of the local coverage criterion, but this seems like an extremely poor time to nominate this page for deletion. This page has been up since March, and you wait until a week before the election to nominate for deletion? And no, I'm not accusing anyone of being partisan or even arguing against your nomination, it just seems like a common sense decision to not even risk making Wikipedia look partisan. To me at least, I'm not in a rush, and it makes way more sense to wait until next week to nominate this article. Bds69 (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP at this time. He was elected in the primary election. Flatterworld (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT. This request is taking the wrong path. The proper path is to use the Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from templates, invite all those involved in both articles, and discuss the issue until consensus is reached. There's no need for a rush to judgement in any of these cases. (Note: One person requesting a Merge is not a consensus, see Ed Potosnak example.)That's why these Merge Templates exist, and that's why they're (normally) used when the issue involves (but not necessarily limited to) a claim that a person is notable only for one event. If consensus is reached, then an actual merge of material rather than a simple delete, or even a delete and redirect, is done. See Scott Harper for an example of this. See Ann Marie Buerkle for an example of the opposite, showing no history at all of what was in the previous article. That article was actually deleted, then a redirect was added after the fact. That's why it's wrong to do deletes in these cases, and that's been the consensus achieved in many, many AfD requests for various political candidates over the years. An example of a non-merge redirect is Lisa Johnston (AfD consensus here). That's simply wrong, as a nominee notable even for an event still has notable information - it's just a question of where it belongs. There is no evidence of any actual merge of material in her case, which makes the election article shockingly unbalanced (aka Undue Weight). There seems to be a lot of confusion on the definition of 'merge' in these discussions. It is not a synonym for a redirect. There are two steps, and both must be taken. Or, the article should be allowed to continue to exist, with 'improvement tags' added as needed. Flatterworld (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least temporarily. per Flatterworld and Bds69. Man, what a waste of time and effort. There is merely ONE editor, Tarc, that wants to flat out destroy the work of many editors 7 days before Election Day. The information is going to be destroyed for no good reason other than Tarc wants to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. As to this particular article, just wait one week and then after Election Day there will be time to decide which articles are to be deleted and which ones will be merged. There is no harm to Wikipedia in waiting, but there is huge potential harm to Wikipedia in destroying editor's work prematurely. It makes Wikipedia look like a partisan free for all. Also, complete deletion is absolutely wrong. There are less destructive ways to handle these articles.--InaMaka (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, 2010#District 3 per WP:POLITICIAN. No notability for the subject exists, since coverage is trivial and purely in the context of his candidacy (for a seat rated safe for the opposite party, no less). Ray^Talk 05:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I favor a low bar for inclusion of biographies of active politicians. Independent media coverage of congressional-level candidates is massive and all Rs and Ds and most independents should be regarded as notable per se on this basis. Proximity to the election makes it even less compelling to delete this material now. Carrite (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2010 (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.