Talk:Tim Sheehy (businessman)

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 October 2024. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Montana Low‑importance

	Montana portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Minnesota Low‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recreation

Not sure if the circumstances have changed since the last AfD, since Sheehy has attracted significantly more media coverage (though not cited here). Pinging previous participants: Muboshgu, Enos733, Tbennert, Radiohist, Intothatdarkness, Ser!, Wikishovel, BottleOfChocolateMilk, and SportingFlyer. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still in the Delete camp, at least until after the election. Intothat darkness 15:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe this should remain a redirect. - Enos733 (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a redirect. But I still don't think he needs his own article. Intothat darkness 17:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firm delete so far. Radiohist (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome of the AFD was to redirect Tim Sheehy (American politician). This new article was created as a redirect to the same target [1], on the grounds that he's "not a politician yet", and another editor came along a week later and recreated the article from the redirect. A Google search for him, minus the word "Senate", turns up no significant coverate in reliable sources as a businessman or a soldier. The US is about three weeks away from a national election, and all of the major candidates are getting heavy press coverage. This was roughly the rationale, per WP:NPOL, for redirect by strong consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Sheehy (American politician). So this article should be deleted, as it's really a renamed repost of Tim Sheehy (American politician). If he wins, then that article should obviously be un-redirected and expanded. Wikishovel (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get why this article's been re-created; I can't find any particularly significant new coverage of Sheehy since the last AFD that has passed into SIGCOV territory. Since the old article has now been turned into a redirect, what's the next course of action; AFD for the second time? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Sheehy is a politician and major party candidate for US Senate and, if the polls are correct, has a huge chance of becoming the next Senator from Montana. I don't understand why we are discussing deleting the article instead of expanding it. All senators and candidates from major parties have their own Wikipedia pages! 2804:D41:F815:AE00:818C:A71C:6F1A:C3B9 (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Sheehy is a major party candidate for the U.S. Senate and, based on current polls, has a strong chance of becoming Montana’s next Senator. I don't see why we're talking about deleting this article instead of improving it. Catgiraffe (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully. The article must be kept.. Melledelle (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I join those who are voting to keep. The Washington Post carried an extensive article on him months ago, if memory serves. His business is not thriving as his campaign would want voters to believe, but it's teetering. The misrepresentations about his service time should be available to Wikipedia writers interested in this race. Lee Newspapers, which I believe control a substantial portion of local coverage in Montana, have not seemed to give this race the attention it deserves, IMHO. Lastly, part of the article is sourced to the publisher's promotional page which I don't think should be depended on to include otherwise unsupported ostensible reliable sources. They're in the business of selling books, not checking facts, especially those that might depress sales. Activist (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Tim Sheehy may turn the Senate red. But is he really a successful businessman?". NBC News. August 9, 2024.
Pengelly, Martin (September 30, 2024). "Memoir contradicts Republican Senate candidate's 'below the poverty line' tale" – via The Guardian.
Who is Tim Sheehy Washington Post September 5, 2024

Djflem (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Shady Sheehy"

I know this is a trivial thing, but I do honestly think it's worth a mention in the article. I live in Montana and a good handful of people refer to Sheehy by the nickname "Shady Sheehy." The nickname comes from the way-too-many political ads here in Montana about "Shady Sheehy," Jon Tester, Ryan Zinke, etc. I previously added a section about the nickname but it has since been removed. I think the nickname is, at the very least, worth at least once sentence in the article. The only issue I have is: how do you cite people talking? There's almost no articles about the nickname, but I know for a fact lots of Montanans refer to him as (or even just simply know of) "Shady Sheehy." MontanaMako (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MontanaMako However you might feel about Sheehy, you can only add material that comes from a reliable source. The nickname is not reliably sourced, so out it goes. It was removed by another Wikipedia editor who would prefer that the whole article be deleted, but with that, the immediately preceding well-sourced specifics about his painstakingly verified and thoroughly documented plagiarism from Montana's States Newsroom were also erased. We all live and learn. Activist (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Education

Sheehy has said the Department of Education should be eliminated and offered his rationale. What is wrong with including his reasoning for why he believes it should be done away with? Djflem (talk) 06:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong is the wording Of the United States Department of Education, Sheehy said that it was formed "so little Black girls could go to school down south, and we could have integrated schooling. We don’t need that anymore” and that is meant to "indoctrinate and enslave" which creates an ambiguity. Is the "that" referring to (a) the department itself? (we don't need the department anymore because amen, integration is long complete) (b) "integrated schooling" (we don't need that anymore...because we should go back to segregation) or (c) "so little Black girls could go to school" (we don't need that anymore...because they should still be field slaves?). I'm going to revert this again because without the strongest of sourcing, we can't insinuate a BLP is a segregationist (or worse) without extremely strong sourcing. I'm open to a rewrite where only interpretation (a) is clear, but I think just the one quote on education is plenty when we say say nothing about his other two most important policy positions or even say what they are although the sources do. BBQboffin^{grill me} BBQboffin^{grill me} 09:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]