Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. By pure headcount, this looks more like a NC, but I give a lot of weight to people who opine in one direction and then change their opinion when presented with new data. That happened in spades here, with several deleters changing to keep after a big cleanup and presentation of new sources. Good call Juliancolton for relisting. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Harry Braun, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 2016

Harry Braun, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 2016 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note to AfD closer: most bangvotes here are related specifically to the article about the BLP's 2016 presidential campaign, which was redirected midway through to the BLP article Harry Braun.

I'm bringing this to AfD for discussion. I regard it as promotional, and feel that it fails WP:POLITICIAN, but I also feel that consensus is needed. I would point out that as a UK resident Brit, I am neither pro nor anti Mr Braun and his candidature. Peridon ( talk) 09:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - the vast majority of the sources have nothing to do with Braun. "neither the Democratic party officials Iowa or New Hampshire or the major newspapers or television news networks would acknowledge Braun’s campaign" says a lot. shoy ( reactions) 13:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Article has been rewritten since this !vote. Keep, appears to weakly pass WP:GNG. shoy ( reactions) 13:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
As does, "Braun’s formal presidential announcement to the American public and the national news media is expected to occur during the month of August 2015 . . . after his Wikipedia and Facebook postings are completed." (emphasis mine) ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 16:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article as written is pure advertising. The vast majority of sources cited in the article have nothing to do with Mr. Braun at all and are merely being used to support his positions (i.e. Braun warned about a doomsday scenario back in 1984 and it's coming true, because bees and fish are disappearing.[Citations showing that bees and fish are disappearing.]). The article is written to support his current presidential run, but those few sources that do discuss Mr. Braun and his ideas are mostly from the 80s, with a couple from 2011 and 2012. A search for news about his current presidential run gives one result; "Bernie Sanders continues to gain on Hillary Clinton in 2016 race to White House". Examiner. July 16, 2015. which says about Braun,

    But Sanders and Clinton are not the only Democrats seeking the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2016. A total of 17 other candidates have officially declared including . . . Harry Braun . . .

    A web search, as opposed to a news search, turns up a lot of results, but most of them are on his own website ( pheonixprojectfoundation.us). He might be notable for something he did in the past; based on some of the cited sources from the 1980s, but as a current presidential candidate he doesn't seem notable, the past notability is sketchy at best, and this article is not written in such a way that it is salvagable. Even if he is notable a better idea is for an editor who doesn't have a conflict of interest to blow it up and start over. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 16:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete He and his candidacy are not notable. A search of Google News finds nothing recent at all. This article is frankly promotional; he admitted as much at Peridon's talk page, saying that nowadays he is "solely focused on my scientific research and my presidential campaign, that will go nowhere if I cannot get a page on Wikipedia, which is necessary for being listed as a presidential candidate on Facebook." This article is just a means to an end for him. When I saw that I left an (admittedly a little harsh) warning on his talk page, about using Wikipedia to promote himself. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
P.S. Noticing that he talks about "my research," I decided to check Google Scholar to see if he has a presence there. It is minimal [1] [2] so he does not meet WP:ACADEMIC either. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There is an ongoing discussion on my talk page with the author of the article, as Melanie says. I would prefer it to be here, but you can't win them all. If there is evidence of notability in the 80s, that is still valid. It doesn't evaporate like popular fame. One point that escapes me - is he a candidate for the presidency or for the Democratic nomination? American politics puzzle me. Peridon ( talk) 18:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks to both. It makes the troubles of our Labour party trying to elect a new party leader look simple by comparison. And possibly explains why only people with money can make it through... (Or so it appears - I may be wrong.) Peridon ( talk) 17:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
User:JayJasper, please see my scrounging-attempt below. The offline 1980s sources in particular. Agree about the stubification of the existing overly-promotional prose. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 11:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 02:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per nomination and other comments above. Un-encyclopedic autobio of a non-notable subject.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 04:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closing administrator: The article was moved to Harry Braun after the start of this discussion. -- MelanieN ( talk) 04:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I am not sure that Harry Braun exists at all. His windships seem to be a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.0.172 ( talk) 12:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • If Harry Braun doesn't exist, then who wrote this article? :-) R'n'B ( call me Russ) 13:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      • The above comment by 92.26.0.172 is unfortunate and should not be taken seriously. We are talking about a living person here, who deserves respect. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
If he's a hoax, it's a very well done one. Whether or not his ideas will work is not part of this discussion. That's for the Democratic Party and the American electors to decide. What is at stake is his notability with reference to our policies, and not to anyone's political views. If he can be proved not to exist in reliable independent sources, so be it. But prove it, don't just say it. Peridon ( talk) 17:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Update The author of the article, who is also the subject of the article, has reacted to the concern about the article being used to promote his presidential campaign, by writing a new version which does not mention his presidential campaign and focuses on his scientific advocacy. The new version can be seen here: [3] Would anyone find this version to be more acceptable? -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I think the word 'advocacy' that you used is significant. What he's written IS advocacy, which in Wikipedia terms means promotion. For me, the new version still doesn't cut the mustard. (I do like these old fashioned expressions...) Peridon ( talk) 20:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete His scientific advocacy is not notable. His principal paper is in a minor Serbian journal, and had attracted little attention. He would be , if anything, more notable as a potential Presidential candidate, and I doubt he is recognized as one. If he should be, a brief aticle about the candidacy would be acceptable--without hte advocacy. The best thing to do with all versions of the preset article is to delete them. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply
DGG, please see list-o-sources below. BLP seems to be a combo-type, who has a bit of scientific cred (not many cites but not zero either), a bit of newspaper-popular-cred, and a bit of politician-cred (especially for his 1980s congressional campaigns -- of which the majority of the WP:RS are offline). Agree about the need to remove WP:SPIP, but I think the sources exist to pass WP:42 for the BLP article; rest should be redirect there. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 11:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
notability for different unrelated things is not additive. If you're not notable as a scientist, and not notable as a politician, that doesn't make you notable as some hybrid.The notability as a politician may be marginal; the notability as a scientist is non-existent. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Call me crazy, but WP:42 sure sounds additive to me, and Braun-as-a-whole-BLP defintely satisfies that heuristic. See also WP:BLP2E and WP:DOGBITESMAN, both of which Braun also satisfies. See my comment to MelanieN, this particular BLP very much *is* a hybrid: the political messaging-candidate with scientific training. He's not the top politician in the world. He's not the top scientist in the world. But he's way up there in the scientist-politician subcategory, and because he satisfies WP:GNG when we add (ahem) all his WP:SOURCES together, that makes him wiki-notable. We're not talking about a bunch of distinct articles here; this is an article about the topic of Harry Braun, which means we cover him as a politician and also as a researcher in that singular BLP-article. Not fair to divvy him up into Harry Braun (politician-aspects) and also Harry Braun (researcher-aspects), just so we can justify deleting *both* articles as "not having enough sources" per article. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 02:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Technical-glitch-note: Braun *is* running again in 2016, although I note that the FEC website (and www.TheGreenPapers.com as well) [6] mis-reports his candidacy as "Harry Braul" due to a mistake by the FEC data-entry personnel. [7] Since Braun is only officially launching his potus campaign this month (August 2015), despite filing in late May 2015, it is somewhat silly to demand immediate production of WP:RS sources to demonstrate the wiki-notability of said Braun'16 campaign, and if such cannot be produced, delete the completely-distinct BLP article. See also, WP:WITCH. Braun is wiki-noteworthy for his earlier campaigns in 2004 and 2012, which got a bit of coverage (per URLs provided above).
    The question becomes, then, does the dedicated article Harry Braun belong in mainspace, aka demonstrate plausible wiki-notability ... which I hope User:Peridon has carefully explained to Braun is very different from real-world notability? Or instead, per WP:PRESERVE, should the political-sources above be merged into an appropriate article, such as in this case Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016#Other_candidates. As it happens, I believe the case can be made that Harry Braun the BLP article satisfies wiki-notability and passes WP:42. The usual wiki-tradition is to demandeth three in-depth independent-third-party wiki-reliable sources, in three distinct years. To four, thou shalt not count; five is right out.
    Before he started running for president during the current millenium, Braun also ran for u.s. rep in Arizona CD#1 versus none other than another presidential candidate, John McCain. According to legit-looking newspaper-clippings on Braun's website, [8] there was some press-coverage of his 1984 and 1986 campaigns. Assuming they check out, these are dedicated articles about Braun specifically, and in different election-years. Wiki-notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. His political campaign-coverage in 2004 (e.g. by C-SPAN) and 2012 (e.g. by Des Moines Register) also counts towards demonstrating wiki-notability, of course.
  • 1984, "Candidate seeks to halt 'suicide' energy policy: Urges moratorium on atomic weapons to foster research", by Joel Nilsson, The Arizona Republic, September 19, 1984
  • 1984, "Braun outlines plan for energy mecca", by [unknown], Tempe Daily News, page 3, September 19, 1984
  • 1984, "Candidate: Hydrogen alternative energy source", by Sanaa Al-Marayati, ASU State Press, page 5, September 24, 1984.
  • 1984, "The World According to Braun", by Doug MacEachern, The New Times, page 3, September 26, 1984.
  • 1984, "McCain, Braun vie for House seat", by Susan Turley, Tempe Daily News, October 14, 1984, page 1 and A4.
  • 1984, "McCain vs, Braun", by Susan Turley, Tempe Daily News, October 23, 1984, page A3.
  • 1986, "Candidate serious on energy issues", by Max Jennings (Executive Editor), The Mesa Tribune, page A7, May 7, 1986.
  • 1986, " 1st District candidate says solar energy only answer", by Adrianne/Adrian Flynn, Tempe Daily News, June 3, 1986.
  • 1986, " District 1 Democrat finds hope in hydrogen", Adrian/Adrianne Flynn, The Mesa Tribune, Vol. 38, No. 202, page 1, August 19, 1986
  • 1986, "Sunshine Man: Braun hopes solar solution stirs District 1 voters", by Don Harris, The Arizona Republic, August 22, 1986, page B1 (Valley & State).
  • 1986, "Braun broadens appeal, shows promise in District 1 race", by Adrianne/Adrian Flynn, The Mesa Tribune, October 6, 1986.
  • 1986, "Braun says energy is not his only issue in House campaign", by [unknown], The Arizona Republic (Special Edition), October 10, 1986.
  • 1986, " 1st District contest heats up after debate", by Adrianne/Adrian Flynn, The Mesa Tribune, October 20, 1986.
  • 1986, "Braun levels attack on Rhodes over CAP", by [unknown], The Arizona Republic, October 24, 1986. page B1 (Valley & State).
  • 1986, "Braun blasts CAP as welfare for rich", Stephen Higgins, Scottsdale Progress, October 23, 1986.
Braun the BLP was not always a political candidate; he also has some coverage-bursts related to his scientific work, see his peer-reviewed papers here, [9] and also [10] [11], which per WP:SCHOLARSHIP can count as WP:RS (not mere WP:ABOUTSELF) despite having Braun listed as an author, since the publication-system of editors and journals and peer-review surrounding such works makes them more than just a science-blog, they are scientific papers. Note that not all of these papers are the *right* "H.Braun", see WP:DBTF; unfortunately for wikipedians trying to use scholar.google.com, besides Harry Braun of Arizona/Georgia, who publishes in energy/chemistry fields, there is also the completely distinct human named Hans-Werner Braun of U.Michigan, who publishes in networking/internet fields. Here are the BLP's cite-counts (according to google), that I was able to find:
  • 4 cites, 1990, The Phoenix Project [version#1990]: an energy transition to renewable resources. [12] (also gives birth-year as 1948, useful for BLP article)
  • 2 cites, 1991, Hydrogen Storage Systems (in Hydrogen: Journal of the American Hydrogen …)
  • 2 cites, 1997, Stirling Energy Systems (SES) dish-Stirling program (several co-authors) (ieeexplore.ieee.org)
  • 3 cites, 1999, Status of the Boeing Dish Engine Critical Component project (four co-authors)
  • 8 cites, 2000, The Phoenix Project [version#2000]: Shifting from Oil to Hydrogen , reprint-entry at books.google.com for this version#2000 == [13] , listed at a couple other quasi-WP:RS websites, once for environmental purposes, [14] once for Braun'16 political purposes. [15]
  • 9 cites, 2003, Calculating hydrogen production costs
  • 5 cites, 2003, The Phoenix Project [version#2003]: Shifting From Oil to Hydrogen with Wartime Speed
  • 4 cites, 2003, The Bad News About Natural Gas
  • 2 cites, 2008, The phoenix project [version#2008]: Shifting to a solar hydrogen economy by 2020 (Chemical Industry and Chemical Engineering Quarterly)
  • 10 cites, 2008, Photobiology: The biological impact of sunlight on health & infection control
I'll note that the WP:GOOG is still imperfect: not listed at scholar.google.com that I could find, one of the BLP's scientific papers from 1992, “Solar Stirling Gensets for Large-Scale Hydrogen Production,” (in: Solar Energy Technology, ASME: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Vol 13, pp. 21-31), is still being cited today, for instance in the concentrated solar power chapter by Alan J. Sangster in the 2014 Springer textbook Electromagnetic Foundations of Solar Radiation Collection. [16] Point being, the list of peer-reviewed papers above is partial, not complete. And since this is WP:GOOG, the list is probably not correct either; I doubt all the listings are peer-reviewed, and all the cite-counts exact.
    But we can use the scholar.google.com output, rough and imperfect as it is, to give us some idea of Braun's academic street-cred: he's not a world-famous researcher by WP:NPROF standards, but he's got legit scientific publications spread out over a couple decades, and he has seen some peer-review (via the scientific journals) and some peer-recognition (via the cite-counts). Most of his papers are about energy-production, either solar-power or hydrogen-power or both, but interestingly his highest-cited paper is from 2008, yet hearkens back to his grad school days, since it is about photobiology rather than about solar power. Braun published The_Phoenix_Project:_Shifting_from_Oil_to_Hydrogen in 1990, which was revised-and-reprinted in 2000 and in 2003 and in 2008; as with his academic papers, publication and editorial-control might have made this book count toward notability, but in this case the publisher was his Braun's employer-slash-startup SPI. (The book-article, just like the campaign-article, should be merged-and-redirected into Harry Braun the BLP-article, methinks.) That said, his opus has been cited by serious people in serious places: Lester Brown for instance. [17] [18] [19] See also the 2002 book-review below ( WP:PAYWALL unfortunately) published by Elsevier. Outside of academia, there is additional reasonably-in-depth-coverage of Braun's solar&hydrogen ideas, for a popular audience, considerably before he entered the 2004 presidential contest in most cases:
  • 1982, "Quality of light held important to your health [by Braun -- the piece is all about him && his research]", by Kitty Maclnnis, Phoenix Gazette, November 17, 1982.
  • 2002, "Book review (of The Phoenix Project: Shifting from Oil to Hydrogen, 2nd Edition, 2000)", by M.V.C Sastri (Dept of Energy, U.Madras, Chennai India), published by Elsevier (in: Intl Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 27, Issue 4, April 2002, Pages 465. doi:10.1016/S0360-3199(01)00129-X. [20]
His startup-businesses are relatively small in terms of revenues and employees; they are consulting vehicles for his personal skillset, from what I can tell via a quick glance, and mostly involved with renewable energy projects of one kind or another. Here is the Dun & Bradstreet for SPI aka Sustainable Partners, founded 2005. [23] There was an earlier small startup company called Mesa Wind LLC, which played some role (unspecified by any WP:RS that I could locate) in a wind-farm-development-project in New Mexico.
    Bottom line: just for the 1986 election-cycle, we have easily satisfied WP:GNG; consider spinoff article about Arizona's 1st congressional district election, 1986 of Braun versus Rhodes. But for this AfD discussion, Braun's other political campaigns have also generated WP:NOTEWORTHY-to-borderline- WP:N press coverage. His scientific papers have been cited, albeit not *widely* cited, and spread over a couple decades. He's got popular coverage of his scientific ideas, as well. Thus, strong keep of the BLP-article, since WP:RS exist from 1982 through 2012 at least. That said, merge all subsidiary articles (campaign/book/research/etc) into subsections of the BLP-article, with possible exception of congressional races getting their own dedicated articles. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 11:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Reply: Thank you for your extensive research. I was unaware of his 1986 congressional campaign and have added it to the article. I also rearranged the article into a somewhat more logical order, putting all the political material into a single section. I did not tackle the second half of the article, which is mostly advocacy; if the article is kept that will have to be severely pruned. Also, I was unaware of the article about his book; it has been an unreferenced stub since 2008 and should either be redirected to his article (if that article is kept) or deleted. (BTW you seem to be under the impression that there are two articles here, the presidential-campaign article and the biography article, but that's not the case. Actually the original article "Democratic Presidential Candidate" article was moved to the biography title "Harry Braun", leaving a redirect. So was the later created "Harry W. Braun III" article, which focused on his scientific advocacy.) You make a good case, but I am still not persuaded that an article is appropriate. Basically he is an unsuccessful political candidate and a little-noticed, self-educated writer on energy topics. Others may disagree. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Hi MelanieN, you are quite welcome.  :-)     On the last point, he is an unelected political candidate, but whether his message advocating wind&solar was unsuccessful or not, is another question. There is such a thing as running for president, to shift the debate... cf Kuchinich'08, Gravel'12, Istvan'16, and quite possibly Sanders'16, plus of course, Braun-every-time. They *are* trying to become president... or congressional-rep or whatever... but they are also trying to shift the debate. There are 18+ repubs running in 2016, and at least half of them are message-candidates or stalking horses, a special sub-breed of messaging-candidate. Any electoral system based on first past the post is mathematically guaranteed to have message-candidates; they are a fixture of American politics for a good reason. In Braun's case, his research-work and his political-message are inextricably intertwined: he is a political candidate, with a message, that revolves around energy policy.
    Anyways, thanks for thanking me, but most of the legwork was done by Braun himself, especially all the 1980s sources, which he thoughfully collected... but not knowing wiki-policies, mixed in with a bunch of aboutself and youtube and tangentially-related-sources. I'm not under any misimpression about the wikilinks under discussion, that I can tell. The vast majority of the "strong-delete" bangvotes here at AfD are specifically about the Harry Braun presidential campaign, 2016 ... which I agree should be a redirect since there are basically zero sources as yet (examiner.com is WP:BLOGS not WP:RS). Midway through the AfD, somebody implemented the redirect, and thus the *later* bangvotes are sometimes about deletion of Harry Braun the BLP-article, and sometimes about the deletion of Harry Braun presidential campaign, 2016 ... so with luck, the AfD closer will exercise some diligence, rather than just counting noses. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 02:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (1)It is not right to say that his energy papers have been cited but not widely cited"; it would be more accurate to say "his energy papers are almost uncited". Cites s low as this are essentially equal to zero--notability as a scientist in a field like this would consist of multiple papers with cites over 50 each. What is notable, and very much so, is hydrogen energy & the hydrogen economy, but he has made no contributions to it worth mentioning. (2) I have long argued that essential every losing candidate of a major party in a 2 party system for a national office is notable, and if it looks otherwise its because we have not yet found the inevitable local sources. He's notable for this. His presidential campaign now is just possibly notable also. (3). Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Moderate notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. This article is straight political advocacy, and a new one should be written by a npov editor. Conceivably this could be used as a starting point, but a better article could be done if this isn't even in the record. (4)If it is kept, the first step in improvement is to remove sections 2.2 3rd and 4th paragraph, section 4 entirely,section 5 except for one summary sentence, section 6 entirely, section 7 entirely, and to reduce section 8 to a single paragraph. Section 9 belongs as the first section--putting the bio at the end is a promotional tactic inappropriate for an encycopedia. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I moved Section 9 ("Background") to the top of the article as you suggest, and retitled it "Personal". I also moved the "World According to Harry Braun" material to the 1984 Congressional election where it belongs. The rest of the article is a disorganized mess but I have not attempted to straighten it out; let people judge the article as presented. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Well, I've attempted to straighten it out, and cut out most of the promotionalism, and the discussion of topics not directly related to the BLP-qua-BLP. We have sources that discuss his stances in more detail than I've left, and I'm not satisfied with the shape the article is in (might still be giving a bit too much weight to his presidential campaigns), but the current state is now much closer to what methinks is wiki-acceptable. Almost uncited is a fair description of Braun's academia-impact, but also not the whole truth: his research efforts have generated general-readership-press, prior to his presidential campaigns. WP:GNG is additive -- we count the number of in-depth sources, and if there are three, then wiki-tradition says keep. We've got like a dozen now. Bangvotes, on the other hand, and not supposed to be additive. One anon, with WP:SOURCES in hand, and wiki-policy on their side, should be enough to overcome WP:BURNTHEWITCH.  ;-)     Deleting the article as wiki-punishment for promotionalism? That's just silly and petty. The wiki-honorable approach is to delete the promotional material from mainspace, which I believe is 90+% accomplished now, and then convince the editors making promotional edits, to adjust their behavior or be blocked. MelanieN seems to have accomplished that attitude-adjustment already with the BLP themselves, though there was also the User:H2016 editor at some point, not sure if that has been sorted yet. User:DGG, this is incorrect: "he has made no contributions to it worth mentioning" , unless you add the qualifier, "mentioning in the article on hydrogen economy" (or for that matter the article Hydrogen). Braun's research work has been proven WP:NOTEWORTHY, because wiki-reliable sources have mentioned that work. It would be WP:UNDUE to mention his work outside his BLP-article, at present, but that's not the same as saying 'he has made no contributions to it worth mentioning', methinks. Anyways, I think Braun passes WP:GNG, and that improvment is the remedy for promotional content, not deletion-as-a-punishment. Braun is a presidential candidate, and a technological futurist, both traits which make him naturally act in a self-promotional fashion in the outside world; he seems reasonable on usertalk, though, and I expect he'll learn the ways of the wiki-culture soon enough. Reasoning on usertalk (or blocking should that be ineffective) is the correct tool to fight persistent on-wiki promotionalism, not article-deletion. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 02:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment "noteworthy" has a special meaning at WP--for science, it means referred to by reputable science sources with to an extent considerably more than the average scientific article. That is not the case here. if we keep the article I would put in references to the papers, but not list them in the article: it's overemphasis. DGG ( talk ) 12:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I agree wiki-noteworthy has a special meaning, but I think that special meaning is spelled out at WP:NOTEWORTHY. "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. ...Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is wiki-noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." And of course, in true wiki-policy fashion, the definition of wiki-noteworthy includes, by reference, the entirety of the WP:PAG.  :-)     Anyways, I don't care if we move the selected bibliography subsection to a footnote or something, although that is somewhat annoying to do, because references cannot be nested inside other references. I'll give it a try though, please edit collaboratively to your liking, if I miss the mark. p.s. Does somebody have access to this [24] 2002 book-review? It is behind a paywall. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 15:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus here seems pretty clearly in the favor of deletion, and I could surely justify carrying that out, but given how much the article has changed since first listed I'd like at least a few more days to make sure everybody's on the same page. Given that the subject is (hopefully "was"?) heavily involved in the evolution of the page, there aren't likely to be any serious BLP objections in the short term. – Juliancolton |  Talk 02:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 02:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Reply I'm not sure what you mean by this: MelanieN seems to have accomplished that attitude-adjustment already with the BLP themselves. If you mean I have tried to improve the article, that's true. But if you are suggesting that I have changed my mind about deleting the article, you are mistaken. As a scientist he is not notable: he has no academic position or advanced degree; his "research", actually advocacy, is sparsely published and is almost completely uncited by others; his book is self-published. And as a political candidate he is not notable. Note that for an unsuccessful candidate for political office, election coverage is not enough to establish notability - because such coverage is routine and is not about them specifically. But election coverage is pretty much the only Reliable Source coverage the article has to offer. So, sorry, I still favor deletion. I know he pleads that he must have an article here if he is to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, but IMO it's the other way round: since he is not taken seriously by reliable sources, should not have an article here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Melanie, I meant that you convinced Harry (aka "the BLP") to adjust his attitude towards wikipedia, and to stop disruptively spamming inappropriately contributing to the article about themselves .  :-)     Sorry about my confusing phrasing. And although I understand your argument in favor of deletion, despite this BLP passing WP:GNG, my position is also still the same: Braun is an historically-interesting political candidate, and has easily passed WP:GNG, because he's found press-coverage in the wiki-reliable sources. Not all that coverage is positive! In fact, much of that coverage paints him as a guy with no shot, aka not a 'serious candidate'. But I note WP:EVERYTHINGISVERYSERIOUSHERE remains a redlink. Braun is an encylopedic topic, by virtue of his coverage in the WP:RS, not by virtue of his being likely to win the 2016 election. He is not likely to win, and wikipedia should not say so, because no sources do. But he has sufficient coverage, and as a student of the history of political elections, I think his story is interesting, as a messaging-candidate with a very specific message. His coverage in the sources stems from that same basis; as a BLP, he's quite an interesting character, and thus we have a dozen sources across the decades with plenty of depth. I understand that wikipedia should not promote Braun's candidacy, and I think we've convinced Braun of that basic wiki-fact-of-life, as well. Although it is possible to delete the BLP-article, as a kind of WP:IAR move that says, wikipedia should only cover serious candidates, I think that would be the wrong move, since it would violate the NPOV pillar. Wikipedia should neutrally cover 100% of the candidaets that satisfy WP:42, and Braun is one of those, by reflecting what the WP:SOURCES actually say. By the same token, neutrality also requires that we disallow 100% of the candidates we cover, from using wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion. But we can achieve both goals: keep the BLP-article, and delete the promotional content, if necessary blocking the agenda-pushing-usernames. Best, 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 17:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I see I was unclear when I said he was "not taken seriously by reliable sources." I didn't mean that we should delete the article because he has no chance of winning the election; that's not a criterion here. By "sources don't take him seriously" I meant that sources just basically don't cover him at all. IMO he does NOT pass GNG, because of lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources (aside from routine congressional election coverage, which doesn't count). I realize you believe he does pass GNG. Reasonable people can differ. (BTW saying "the BLP" to mean the actual human is kind of strange. BLP means "biography of living person" and refers to an article, not a person.) -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Ah, understood, you are interpreting 'significant' coverage in a specific way, which you are perfectly free to do, WP:N is left somewhat ambiguous, quite on purpose methinks for tricky cases. WP:NPOL guideline disagrees that his 1980s coverage was not 'significant' , see type#3 therein. The BLP -- which I use as shorthand for Harry Braun the "Biography" article as well as Harry Braun the "Living Person" -- as a way to remind us all that he *is* a living human and deserves respect per WP:BLP -- was given coverage in 1984 as an unsuccessful candidate, and if 1984 was all we had, then the BLP would arguably fail WP:GNG, but because the BLP was again the nominee in 1986, and because of coverage outside the congressional races in 1982+1990s+2000s for research-stuff, and small-but-not-negligible coverage in 2004/2012/maybeSoon2016 for potus, the 1984+1986 congressional coverage cannot be discounted as "routine" anymore. Instead of WP:BLP1E, we have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of an interesting-to-the- WP:SOURCES living human (see WP:BLP2E) across a number of decades. WP:ROUTINE is meant to exclude things like sheriff elections; it is NOT meant to exclude coverage of Clinton'16, even though the presidential election is 'routine' in the sense that we have one every four years!  :-)     I think the same reasoning applies to congressional races, they are not 'routine' even though there are 535 reps, see WP:NPOL which explicitly includes state reps and state senators, not just federal reps and federal senators; if Braun's only coverage was as the 1984 federal nominee, he might fail WP:BLP1E, but that is clearly not the case here, Braun is WP:BLP2E. But as you say, reasonable people can disagree, and although we do, I understand what you are saying now with respect to 'significant' coverage. Best, 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 16:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Just one comment: WP:NPOL gives automatic coverage to state representatives and congresspeople, yes. But it emphatically does NOT give automatic coverage to unsuccessful candidates for Congress or state legislatures. In fact articles about unsuccessful candidates for Congress get deleted all the time for failing WP:NPOL - even if they do receive local coverage about their candidacy. See, for example, the electoral history of the congressional district I live in. Only two of the dozen-or-so unsuccessful candidates have articles, and those two were previously notable for other reasons. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Yup, we are on the same page in our reading of the wiki-tea-leaves. I just think that in the case of this BLP, he became post-1984-and-1986-notable, due to the press-coverage of his hydrogen-from-renewable-energy-research, and the press-coverage of the (related) series of potus campaigns, which is three coverage-bursts. He doesn't satisfy WP:NPOL criteria#1, since he's never won an election, but I think he satisfies WP:NPOL criteria#3, aka an unelected candidate that (in this case later) passed WP:GNG due to additional coverage, outside the 1984 election and the 1986 election. Once that additional WP:BLP2E coverage exists, the 1984 and 1986 coverage becomes useful for demonstrating WP:N, in my interpretation of the WP:POLITICIAN wiki-policies at least. Anyways, I do absolutely agree there is a lot of subjectivity involved, and if you still think 'significant' coverage is lacking, by some definition of significant, or even that the 1984/1986 coverage cannot be counted towards wiki-notability since the BLP lost the elections in question, by your reading of WP:NPOL, I can definitely understand your stance. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 19:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep News articles in major papers show his notability as an advocate and " Perennial candidate". Please don't punish him for what he is not by deleting his article. Borock ( talk) 05:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep 75.108.94.227 and MelanieN have done a great job cleaning up the mess this article originally was. It now cites sources that clearly show he is notable. I still have a few concerns about the article; for example, although the overtly promotional tone and nature is gone it still seems to portray him in a more positive light than some of the sources do. Also I don't trust the 4 sources I've mentioned on the talk page without seeing them. However, those are clean-up concerns, not deletion concerns and AFD is not clean up. At this point I think this article should be kept. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 15:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (changed from previous !vote for "Delete"). Kudos to 75.108.94.227 for a great job of digging up and adding some not-so-easy-to-find sources, and making what I find to be a convincing argument that the subject does indeed pass WP:GNG. Thanks to all those who've worked on the rewrite, great job of cutting out the promotional stuff and making it more encyclopedic.-- JayJasper ( talk) 21:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Appreciate the praise, but credit for the bulk of the rewrite goes to MelanieN, my contribution was just deleting the remaining scientific-advocacy leftovers with an axe, plus organizing the existing sourcing into AfD-format ... credit for the actual offline-sourcing-legwork goes to the BLP themselves, who as a researcher actually read the byzantine wiki-policies before posting his autobiography here, and provided a 45-page-PDF with press-clippings since 1982 to demonstrate wiki-notability (no link due to DMCA). Reading the wiki-policies isn't the same as understanding them deeply, hence the series of beginner-mistakes, but the BLP is cooperative, and I have hopes they will become a long-term contributor about more than just Braun'16, once they know the ropes. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 10:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - Perennial candidates are often not really notable, but it looks like he's had frequent coverage over the years from a variety of different publications that are reliable sources. Having said that, I still am somewhat torn given that the references seem to be tangential and fleeting. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 15:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Braun,_Democratic_Presidential_Candidate,_2016&oldid=1069085749"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE