Talk:Barry Hinckley

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 September 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to United States Senate election in Rhode Island, 2012.

United States: Rhode Island Low‑importance

	United States portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Rhode Island portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Rhode Island (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

Based on the following dialogue, I am recreating the page:

News

WRNI

I consider this to be significant coverage in the place that matters, which is Rhode Island. He is considered the Republican challenger to a sitting US Senator. It makes Wikipedia look bad not to have this article. It certainly needs to be improved, but it is a start. Scott Illini (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one you need to convince - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Hinckley is where the decision was made. Your only venue is WP:DRV, but I don't think you'll have much luck there right now. See my comment in the AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in the decision, it says "Can be recreated if he meets the normal notability criteria (i.e., substantial third party coverage)." I claim that has now been met. Coverage in Barrington Patch, Westerly Sun, and Boston Globe since September 30th. I am asking you to review my evidence and be persuaded to this conclusion as well. We do not need to involve anyone else. You and I are empowered to resolve this per the decision itself. Scott Illini (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~The page has been WP:SALTed.~~ Take it WP:DRV or better yet, drop the stick and back away from the horse. Your conflict of interest is patently obvious. Toddst1 (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to get to the right answer. I take Wikipedia seriously as well.Scott Illini (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I am going to return this page to a redirect. That was the consensus opinion at the AfD discussion, and it can only be overcome by consensus (such as by discussion here at this page).

The closing administrator said the page could be recreated if there was "substantial third party coverage", but that has not happened. The coverage since then is purely "horse race" reporting, such as the amount of money he has raised; it is not substantial coverage about him. The only article I found that gives him more than a passing mention is this one, and it is more about the phone-payment technology than it is about him.

Most of the commentators at the AfD said the page should be recreated if he becomes the actual Republican nominee. That cannot happen until the primary, 11 months from now, in September 2012. At this point he is the only declared candidate, but other better-known candidates are expected to declare as the election comes closer.[1] Meanwhile Hinckley is regarded as such a long shot that polling companies don't even include his name in surveys; see United States Senate election in Rhode Island, 2012#Republican primary.

Being the first (and so far only) person to declare his candidacy does not make him "the candidate". If someone were to declare right now that they are a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, would that make them "the Republican candidate"?

It's clear you are passionate about this candidate, but the requirement remains consensus. The Wikipedia community did you a favor by retaining a redirect page for this person. If you continue to recreate this page without consensus, I will renominate it for deletion, and this time I will argue against a redirect page, on the grounds that it is being abused. --MelanieN (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page. Enough disruption from his partisan supporters. Toddst1 (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need to clarify a few things:

Toddst1, I recreated the page because at the end of our discussion, you put a strikethrough on your SALTed statement. I thought this meant that you had reviewed the articles and changed your mind. I am sorry if that was in error.
MelanieN, I really would beg you to scan this article, as it is definitely substantial coverage by a real newspaper. By no means is it just reporting on funds raised. It is certainly more in depth than the payment one, so I just have to assume that you didn't see this one.
I never said that he was "the candidate". In fact, I edited that out before recreating the page, among other things. I did real work cleaning up the page before recreating it. Please check my edits.
The Wikipedia community did not "do me a favor". I am new to this article. I read about Barry, and came to Wikipedia to research him. When I discovered that some useful information was hiding in a deleted article, I thought "gosh, this should really be available to others, given that his press has increased since that AfD."
Again, I thought I had reached consensus with Toddst1. That's just a miscommunication, and I accept responsibility if that was my fault.

Scott Illini (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]