Talk:Will Hurd/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This page is unbiased, about a candidate for office that has been numerously mentioned in the press, and served the country for nearly a decade in warzones. I'm having trouble understanding why this article is being marked for deletion, when it matches the format and content of several similar articles.EdJones1998 (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The article appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Running for office is not sufficient to meet nobility requirements. I'm not in a hurry to delete, in hopes that some hint of notability might emerge. As it stands now, I do not see an assertion of sufficient signifcance to decline the speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. It's election season again here in the US. Hopefulls will come here hoping to use Wikipedia as a platform from which to advance their political agenda's. This is not appropriate. Dlohcierekim 18:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is also the second attempt to create this article. This version is improved with much less puffery but I still am not seeing the subject meeting the criteria for an article at this time.Cptnono (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There are very few CIA officers that run for office - they usually go into consulting. Several news media outlets, local, statewide and national, have taken notice of this, they have been added to the external links section.EdJones1998 (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There are very few [insert whatever job description here] that run for office. His previous position is interesting but does not make him notable. For example, in Washington the former jobs of a sheriff and Microsoft executive were commonly mentioned in the headlines of news stories during one race. That was not why they were truly being written about.

This article has a strong possibility of becoming promotional. This is already seen with the Youtube link (see WP:ELNO) and the Bexxar Republican. I would also like to know how many the stories were solicited. See "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability" at WP:SPIP in the General Notability guideline.

Notability is not temporary WP:NTEMP. If he does not win then this short burst of coverage does not warrant an article.

WP:ONEEVENT applies. He is a player in an event (the election) that might deserve an article. A paragraph there would be better than a separate article for the candidate. I also think it is inappropriate to give this candidate prominence while ignoring the others.Cptnono (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

This page is unbiased, about a candidate for office that has been numerously mentioned in the press, and served the country for nearly a decade in warzones. I'm having trouble understanding why this article is being marked for deletion, when it matches the format and content of several similar articles.EdJones1998 (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The article appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Running for office is not sufficient to meet nobility requirements. I'm not in a hurry to delete, in hopes that some hint of notability might emerge. As it stands now, I do not see an assertion of sufficient signifcance to decline the speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. It's election season again here in the US. Hopefulls will come here hoping to use Wikipedia as a platform from which to advance their political agenda's. This is not appropriate. Dlohcierekim 18:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is also the second attempt to create this article. This version is improved with much less puffery but I still am not seeing the subject meeting the criteria for an article at this time.Cptnono (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There are very few CIA officers that run for office - they usually go into consulting. Several news media outlets, local, statewide and national, have taken notice of this, they have been added to the external links section.EdJones1998 (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There are very few [insert whatever job description here] that run for office. His previous position is interesting but does not make him notable. For example, in Washington the former jobs of a sheriff and Microsoft executive were commonly mentioned in the headlines of news stories during one race. That was not why they were truly being written about.

This article has a strong possibility of becoming promotional. This is already seen with the Youtube link (see WP:ELNO) and the Bexxar Republican. I would also like to know how many the stories were solicited. See "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability" at WP:SPIP in the General Notability guideline.

Notability is not temporary WP:NTEMP. If he does not win then this short burst of coverage does not warrant an article.

WP:ONEEVENT applies. He is a player in an event (the election) that might deserve an article. A paragraph there would be better than a separate article for the candidate. I also think it is inappropriate to give this candidate prominence while ignoring the others.Cptnono (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Review of sources

In my experience, the best place to turn for info on a candidate is the profiles of the papers in the run up to the election. I was disappointed at the trivial coverage offered in the sources listed at this point. Despite the three sources, I do not believe there is an assertion of significance. Sources are for evaluation at WP:AFD, but we will see. Dlohcierekim 18:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Texas Monthly piece gives some info but the other two have mentions that are so trivial that they do not assert notability.Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added additional sources to help bolster notability. EdJones1998 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So far there is one source that is really on the topic, the rest just mention the name as a secondary content, or are not independent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion G4 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Hurd

Should have checked sooner. Would have saved a lot of wasted effort. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Hurd. No substantial improvement. Subject remains not notable. Dlohcierekim 14:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Improved ref's Dlohcierekim

Restored

So this was speedy deleted based on the last speedy deletion bu then restored based on improvement. I personally had a couple of those improvements but it was simply to remove fluff. If this was a prod I would have also prod|2d it. Regardless of the bureaucratic fun (which can lead to improvement sometimes so no worries) this article is a terrible idea. The subject is not notable and there are serious concerns regarding spam and weight. An alternative to deletion would be to blank it and redirect it to the district's wikipedia article. This could also be done with the number of other republicans in the race. It could also set a precedent to do this with other candidate articles in the future but that might just be me having a knee jerk reaction. Does anyone but the original creator (no offense meant) have reasoning to keep? How about to keep as is?Cptnono (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

While asserting significance a lower standard that notability, the subject does not appear to meet notability requirements. It is improved over the previous article in that it 1) centers on subject's political run, and 2) is better sourced. If it sticks around, I will send to WP:AFD. The decision to delete would probably be better made there. The more references, the more significant content and the less fluff, the stronger the article. If the candidate has held any elected office >/= mayor, he would meet notability requirements. No offense, but in my personal experience, there are many candidates that would love an article here that do not meet WP:N or WP:Politician, but that's another story. In my opinion, the subject does not meet notability requirements, but that's why there's WP:AFD-- consensus, not individual opinion is what's important. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I wasn't trying to call you out or anything as the admin on it. Just was seeing different solutions in general. Apologies if it came across prickish.Cptnono (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

NO, me too. Just thinking out loud, I guess. I think admin's sometimes don't let their reasoning show sometimes. Seriously, I'd have not CSD tagged this. Prod would have been better, and now were moving into AFD-land with the improvements. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Hurd (2nd nomination). Cptnono (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

G4

I already considered that. The article is substantially improved since AFD 1. Might as well let the AFD proceed. Dlohcierekim 17:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Congressional Photo

Are we not able to get his congressional photo for the infobox? Guyb123321 (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

He serves alongside

Hurd is one of two non-white Republicans in the U.S. House; he serves alongside Mia Love, who represents Utah's 4th congressional district.

Being both vaguely euphemistic and vaguely puffy, "he serves alongside" fails to pass the encyclopedic bar. The reader is to infer the Mia Love is also non-white?

Quick, tell me again the official Greek rhetorical/mathematical term for racial induction from patriotic placeholder verb? I must have slept through that lecture. — MaxEnt 19:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that was odd wording/content. What do you think of this? Marquardtika (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's proper to say that he is one of two non-white Republicans in the house - there are a handful of Republican Latino members who definitely wouldn't pass as "white" on the street. Also if this was referring to Mia Love this article will have to be updated in January as she just conceded her closely fought House race. Thanks!

"Quandary" is Too Big of a Word for This Article

In the "Health Care" subsection:

"He favors repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).[33] In 2017, when House Republican leadership introduced the American Health Care Act (a bill to repeal the ACA), Hurd was faced with a political quandary."

As a reader, I expect that a quandary should first be explained, and second that explanation should clearly detail all the various reasons why a situation is a "quandary". Quandaries require lots and lots of words, like maybe an entire paragraph. More, probably, than what the article could support and still remain interesting, IMO. The details given in the "Health Care" section seem vague and ambiguous, and what's conveyed sounds more like "angst" or "indecisions". Quandaries are deep, significant and important enough to merit the number of words used to explain them. The choice is to either attempt to explain the "quandary", or describe Hurd's conflict with the ACA vs. AHCA issue using less flowery and dramatic language. Using this word sets the Reader up to expect a more detailed analysis that never appears. It's a readability issue.2605:6000:6947:AB00:D16B:F4F4:1B1C:309E (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Leading Voice on Technological Issues

Hello,

I am a little confused why it states that Will Hurd is a leading voice on technological issues. All of the references to him being a leading voice on technological issues don't actually seem to have that information in the item cited. I feel like right now without a reference that actually contains the supposedly cited material that this is inappropriate and should be struck from the page. I hope this is useful to somebody here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:C000:4A:7C76:6B1D:3BFA:BA09 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)