- 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. Michig ( talk) 17:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Bill Wohlsifer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another campaign brochure for an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election, with no claim of notability that gets him over WP:NPOL and relying almost entirely on his own website — an invalid primary source — for referencing. I'm certainly willing to consider withdrawing this if enough reliable source referencing can be added to get him over WP:GNG, but he's not entitled to keep an article on Wikipedia just because his name is on a ballot. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 02:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I added other sources to the aspects of the page outside of his political website. I don't know if they are sufficient, but they are among the best that can be found through searching. As he is a third-party candidate, coverage isn't as robust. Will continue to search and add, unless of course the decision is made. Ghal416 ( talk) 03:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Candidates for AG are not notable. No other real claim to notability.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 23:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- I can understand the point of notability, but such a thing seems like a Catch 22 in that if you aren't as referenced by enough media sources or such, then you don't pass muster. However, again, many of those within a third-party identity don't usually get such coverage, even if they have had involvement in the community. In this particular case, he has been involved to the point of getting involved in the political process/writing legislation. That's more noteworthy than that of the average person from this site or of the general public. And he is covered by independent sources outside of his personal political website, which I searched for and added to the page (still looking in fact). I think it shouldn't be deleted, but it is what it is.
Ghal416 (
talk) 12:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Having a Wikipedia article is not something that anybody is entitled to just because they exist. So your "Catch 22" really isn't one — because by the very nature of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, it's exactly the point of having notability guidelines to distinguish who gets a Wikipedia article and who doesn't in the first place — otherwise, we'd have to accept every single person on earth posting their résumés, and then we'd just be
LinkedIn. Our rules for politicians are that a person must win the election, or already have enough notability prior to being a candidate (e.g. as an actor, as a writer, etc.) to get past our inclusion standards for that field of endeavour, to qualify for an article on here — a person is not entitled to an article just for the mere fact of being a candidate in an election, and does not qualify for one on the basis of routine local coverage of the candidacy itself except very occasionally in extreme circumstances such as the international media firestorm that engulfed
Christine O'Donnell. And that's true regardless of what party a person is associated with — nobody associated with any party, be it the Democrats, the Republicans, the Libertarians or the Monty Python Silly Party, automatically gets the right to have an article on here just for the mere fact of being on a ballot. We are not, and will not become, a repository of campaign brochures for aspiring candidates — that's what
Project Vote Smart is for, not what Wikipedia is for. And none of the sources you added improve the case, as every last one of them is still either a
primary source or purely routine local coverage of the campaign itself — none of it demonstrates that he's passed the extremely high Christine O'Donnell bar necessary for a candidate to be notable just for being a candidate, and none of it demonstrates that he was already notable for anything else before he became a candidate either.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- A fair point Bear, again I just tend to believe that while notability is a good spectrum to have, it can also be taken to exclude individuals as well if it is perceived that they don't have "acceptable coverage", which can be debatable. By the way, I'm not sure if it was a typo but you said that some of the sources I had added were primary sources...isn't that acceptable? In any case, no need for the emphases or..the Cristine O'Donnell references haha...for I am just learning as I go along. Unlike yourself, I am still new to the complete processes here at Wikipedia. I didn't add this to make waves, just to expand knowledge, no more no less. If it is by the opinion of yourself and others that this page is not acceptable material, then perhaps it should just be a redirect so that anyone typing in Mr. Wohlsifer's name in the search bar will be directed to the 2014 Florida Attorney General election that he is on the ballot for. No hard feelings. Ghal416 ( talk) 14:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Having a Wikipedia article is not something that anybody is entitled to just because they exist. So your "Catch 22" really isn't one — because by the very nature of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, it's exactly the point of having notability guidelines to distinguish who gets a Wikipedia article and who doesn't in the first place — otherwise, we'd have to accept every single person on earth posting their résumés, and then we'd just be
LinkedIn. Our rules for politicians are that a person must win the election, or already have enough notability prior to being a candidate (e.g. as an actor, as a writer, etc.) to get past our inclusion standards for that field of endeavour, to qualify for an article on here — a person is not entitled to an article just for the mere fact of being a candidate in an election, and does not qualify for one on the basis of routine local coverage of the candidacy itself except very occasionally in extreme circumstances such as the international media firestorm that engulfed
Christine O'Donnell. And that's true regardless of what party a person is associated with — nobody associated with any party, be it the Democrats, the Republicans, the Libertarians or the Monty Python Silly Party, automatically gets the right to have an article on here just for the mere fact of being on a ballot. We are not, and will not become, a repository of campaign brochures for aspiring candidates — that's what
Project Vote Smart is for, not what Wikipedia is for. And none of the sources you added improve the case, as every last one of them is still either a
primary source or purely routine local coverage of the campaign itself — none of it demonstrates that he's passed the extremely high Christine O'Donnell bar necessary for a candidate to be notable just for being a candidate, and none of it demonstrates that he was already notable for anything else before he became a candidate either.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- I can understand the point of notability, but such a thing seems like a Catch 22 in that if you aren't as referenced by enough media sources or such, then you don't pass muster. However, again, many of those within a third-party identity don't usually get such coverage, even if they have had involvement in the community. In this particular case, he has been involved to the point of getting involved in the political process/writing legislation. That's more noteworthy than that of the average person from this site or of the general public. And he is covered by independent sources outside of his personal political website, which I searched for and added to the page (still looking in fact). I think it shouldn't be deleted, but it is what it is.
Ghal416 (
talk) 12:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - as per reasons given above. AAA3AAA ( talk) 14:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- 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.