- 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. Sandstein 19:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Mark Elworth Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
trivial local publicity for unelected political candidate y. Not everyone who wants to legalize marihuana is notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 12:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- delete lacks significant coverage in WP:RS. does not meet WP:NPOL. does not meet WP:GNG. the passing mentions do not suffice. just a hopeful politician trying to generate notice and garner support. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 12:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Subject was Libertarian Party candidate for Governor of Nebraska, nominated by petition, and Third Party candidate for Vice-president, nominated by petition to appear on ballots in two states, Iowa and Minnesota. Subject is notable for founding the Nebraska Legal Marijuana Now Party, and has been profiled by the Omaha World-Herald, among others. (Also making news for non-political community volunteer work.) Recent activities of ballot-access petitioning organizational work continue to be notable, and article is little more than a stub that can be expanded to bring up to date. --
The Hammer of Thor (
talk) 15:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- replythe trouble is the lack of significant coverage, the not meeting the GNG, the not meeting of NPOL. Candidates are not notable just for running. nor are his other political activity evidence of notability. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 16:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- Strong delete a trounced, local non-notable politician who receives only passing coverage. This is not the stuff notability is made of. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Subject easily meets Wikipedia notability requirements. Multiple reliable sources verify a broad variety of information about the subject. Additional references not listed in the article include:
- NET News (October 22, 2014)
- Nebraska Radio Network (April 20, 2015)
- Independent Political Report (December 29, 2015)
- High Times (September 5, 2016)
- Independent Political Report (October 19, 2016)
- Palisade Community (December 2, 2016)
- KSNB 4 TV News (June 8, 2017)
- Ballot Access News (July 25, 2017)
- Washington County Pilot-Tribune & Enterprise (September 26, 2017)
- Subject is a local celebrity in Nebraska, nationally noted by Associated Press, The Cannabist, High Times, and others.
Keep.-- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 20:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Subject easily meets Wikipedia notability requirements. Multiple reliable sources verify a broad variety of information about the subject. Additional references not listed in the article include:
- Delete. Neither being a third-party candidate for governor nor being a minor-party candidate for vice-president of the United States constitutes an automatic inclusion freebie per WP:NPOL, but there's no strong evidence of preexisting notability for other reasons being shown here. And the sources listed above by The Hammer of Thor aren't bolstering the case for inclusion, either: Independent Political Report, Ballot Access News and Palisade Community are WordPress blogs, not reliable sources, and every last one of the others just glancingly namechecks Elworth's existence in the process of being about something else. Which means that exactly zero of them count a whit toward getting him over WP:GNG: we require coverage in which he's the subject, not just coverage of other things which happens to mention his name. Bearcat ( talk) 20:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
note maintaining previous position after considering later comments. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 20:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I second those thoughts on 'Independent Political Report, Ballot Access News and Palisade Community. Garbage references. 104.163.155.95 ( talk) 02:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- These are nine sources of additional information for the article. None alone intended to convey notability. Four of the nine are blogs, at least one of which is credibly authored however. Five of them are reliable sources. These are extras on top of the dozen or so references already in the article and elsewhere on Wikipedia. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 03:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Subject is notable since 2000 for work with the Green Party. And later petitioning for the Libertarian Party, which helped him to earn the Libertarian Party nomination for Governor. However, subject is most notable for founding the Marijuana Party of Nebraska. He has led successful petition drives in the past, and the failed petition drive he led in 2016 was notable in particular for its failure.
Keep. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 21:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- For the second time, you only get to "vote" once in an AFD discussion. You can comment as many times as you like, but you don't get to restate the "keep" vote that you've already given — and just to clarify, since you clearly went with the wrong takeaway from the first time I addressed that with you in this discussion: it is not okay to restate your keep vote just because you italicize the word "keep" instead of bolding it. The problem isn't whether you format the revote it in bold text or not — the problem is the making of any followup revote at all.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think you're being petty about a typo. Please assume good faith. Striking through someone's comment is like talking over them, an impolite behavior. No one is voting more than once. --
The Hammer of Thor (
talk) 01:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, when you write the word K**P in block letters on its own twice in separate entries, that's voting twice. Striking it out. Just leave it struck out please, to prevent confusion. It is very common practice to strike duplicate votes, look around.
104.163.155.95 (
talk) 02:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Block letters? Confusing? If you say so. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 03:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, when you write the word K**P in block letters on its own twice in separate entries, that's voting twice. Striking it out. Just leave it struck out please, to prevent confusion. It is very common practice to strike duplicate votes, look around.
104.163.155.95 (
talk) 02:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think you're being petty about a typo. Please assume good faith. Striking through someone's comment is like talking over them, an impolite behavior. No one is voting more than once. --
The Hammer of Thor (
talk) 01:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- For the second time, you only get to "vote" once in an AFD discussion. You can comment as many times as you like, but you don't get to restate the "keep" vote that you've already given — and just to clarify, since you clearly went with the wrong takeaway from the first time I addressed that with you in this discussion: it is not okay to restate your keep vote just because you italicize the word "keep" instead of bolding it. The problem isn't whether you format the revote it in bold text or not — the problem is the making of any followup revote at all.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Reply Yes. Notability requirements are met. Elworth is the "subject" of the articles in reliable sources including: NET News Public Radio, Lincoln Star Journal, KETV7 ABC News, Omaha World-Herald, and Fox42 KPTM TV News. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 21:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- No, he's not, at least not if the links you provided above are the "proof" of it. In each and every one of those links, the subject is something other than Elworth himself, and Elworth merely happens to have his existence namechecked as a bit player. Being named in a source is not necessarily the same thing as being the subject of that source. And even if he were the subject of any of those sources, it takes quite a lot more than just a handful of local coverage to make someone notable — everybody who'd ever been a non-winning candidate in any election anywhere could always show five pieces of local coverage, so what we would require is nationalized coverage demonstrating that he's substantially more notable than most of the other half a million or more people who've been non-winning candidates in democratic elections in the past decade. And incidentally, organizing a petition drive isn't a notability criterion in and of itself either — many thousands upon millions of people have done that in the past too. Bearcat ( talk) 22:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Reply This is what we have:
- "Elworth is third governor candidate" Lincoln Journal Star
- "Mark Elworth Jr.'s shaking up election with unflinching honesty" KETV 7 News ABC Omaha
- "Nebraska governor hopeful Mark Elworth Jr. looks to fuel Libertarian Party’s fire" Omaha World-Herald
- Three reliable sources in which Elworth is clearly the subject, in fact he is named in the titles.
- If that is not enough, we have a couple bonus citations where Mr. Elworth is indeed the subject, but just not his name in the headline:
- Then, on top of that, there is a whole string of reliable sources documenting the subject's activities, including:
- "Marijuana Party seeks spot on ballot for presidential race" Omaha World-Herald, this story picked up by Associated Press: "Marijuana Party candidates could appear on Nebraska ballot this fall" The Denver Post
- "HIGH TIMES Legislative Roundup: September 5" High Times
- And then there is extra icing. A subject with a great enough volume of "mentions" could meet notability requirements by sheer volume. Elworth gets extra points:
- "Medical marijuana advocates petition to form Nebraska political party" KETV 7 News ABC 7 Omaha
- Subject is notable. Article is of interest to Wikipedia. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 02:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Reply This is what we have:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 17:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 17:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- delete No significant independent in-depth coverage. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Much of the opposition to keeping the article amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Everything in the article is confirmed by multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -- The Hammer of Thor ( talk) 23:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- reply to comment Much of the "keep" amounts to "I like it overly much". It is not required to comment about every part of the discussion you disagree with. -- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 00:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL. Unelected candidates are rarely notable and this subject misses the mark. Coverage is local or in passing. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:08, 16 November 2017 (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.