Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Carleton Boyle

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 delete. J Milburn's argument is pursuasive. If Mr. Boyle becomes a subject of coverage (rather than a passing mention) by reliable sources in the future, the article can be recreated.--Kubigula (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Carleton Boyle

I am not convinced that simply being a candidate for govenor is enough assertion of notability. Press attention appears to have been minimal. J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Mr. Boyle's media impact may not very large, he has had a significant impact on the people and politics of New Hampshire. A great deal of Mr. Boyle's progressive efforts have been stunted by Concord, New Hampshire officials. This entry is an attempt to document his achievements precisely because the media attention he has received has been unreservedly underwhelming. With time, this content of this page will rival the deeds of David Carleton Boyle. People need to hear of his story and life because the noblest spirit embiggens the smallest man

I'm sorry, but we don't keep articles about people simply because we believe that they are inspirational, we keep them if they are proven to be notable. As there are no reliable sources about this person, he is not notable. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Concord Monitor and Fox News don't count as reliable sources? Boyle is a homeless person running for President. His platform is very strange, though there is not yet any material about it online. If it emerges, I'll add it to the article. In the meantime, why the rush to get rid of facts about him? Why does notability rest on the whims of mainstream media? 71.194.38.132 (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have problems with our notability guidelines, please raise them at the relevent talk pages, but, trust me, suggesting that we don't need reliable sources in articles isn't going to get you very far. The problem with the sources currently cited is that they are trivial, tiny mentions. J Milburn (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no suggestion above that Wikipedia doesn't need reliable sources. The suggestion is that The Concord Monitor and Fox News are reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.38.132 (talk) 07:07, 3 January 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.