The result was Keep. Even taking into account the SPA's there is still a clear consensus to keep, as opposed to deleting or merging.(non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 18:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete under both CSD-A7 and CSD-G11. He was a presidential intern - that is the most notable thing in the article and that is insufficient for inclusion as a standalone article. Let this person pay for airtime on television in order to educate the public about his campaign position rather than use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Keeleysam ( talk) 19:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
"Clarification. From WP:BIO: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." imo this means that if Joe Blow 'declares' himself an indidependent candidate for some office, whether President or dogcatcher, we don't have to allow an article for him. It's certainly not meant to apply to someone who's won the primary of a major party for a major office, as those have had significiant coverage in reliable sources such as Project Vote Smart, Follow the Money, Open Secrets, as well as the media. Let's keep in mind what the guideline was intended to allow and disallow, and not twist its meaning into only allowing incumbents to have articles. That makes no sense at all.
As for KeeleySam's political affiliations, he claims to live in the Chicago area and he worked on the 'Stevenson High School (Lincolnshire, Illinois)' article, which is in Kirk's district. Draw your own conclusions. I'm now returning to my work on every single U.S. Senator and Rep, and every single state Governor, Senator and Rep - and (assuming I'm not continually ambushed with these sorts of 'discussions') all the candidates (sometimes called 'challengers') running against them. I actually believe elections matter, and politics isn't some game (ooh! ooh! I got the other side's candidate deleted! Two points!), or an excuse to take cheap shots at the candidates running in elections. I further suggest that 'KeeleySam' read the article about Lee Atwater - he might learn something about why his game-playing is a really lousy idea.
Flatterworld (
talk) 18:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
reply