Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Choate

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. I'll leave a redirect to Tennessee United States Senate election, 2006. — Scientizzle 01:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Choate[edit]

Article does not assert notability of its subject. Having been a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat does not constitute notability, and in this case subject has no prior political experience (none that is addressed within the article). Ozgod 13:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, losing minor-party candidate, nonnotable. NawlinWiki 13:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biased keep; I wrote the article. The only criterion given for deletion is "non-notability". The article is verifiable in reliable sources. It is neutral (I detest basically all of this person's political views, yet I do not believe that my dislike for his views influenced my work on this article, and if need be, the political views subsection could be excised entirely). In the 2006 TN Senate election, Santa, errr, Choate received the third most votes, behind only Bob Corker and Harold Ford and ahead of four other candidates. Choate was written about in at least three of Tennessee's major newspapers, some of which are referenced in the article (though it's possible that the links have expired by now). Finally, recognizing that I am unlikely to persuade most in this discussion, consider that the article Tennessee Senate election, 2006 is going to exist forever (hopefully). In the future, having articles on each of the candidates, minor or not, could be a useful tool for, perhaps, someone studying elections in the early 21st century. I recognize the place of notability on Wikipedia and its validity as a factor when considering the deletion of articles. However, let's not overuse notability as a criterion for deletion; especially when it is the only reason provided in support of deletion. · jersyko talk 13:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In spite of the WP:USEFUL argument, the guy just doesn't pass inclusion criteria. Sorry. Arkyan  ^(talk) 14:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was a candidate for the US Senate, and the author is right in saying that the Tennessee Senate election, 2006 article will forever exist, so might as well provide information on the candidates that the article links to. --Sdornan 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor party losing candidate is not notable; also WP:BLP#BLP1E, we cover the event (here, the election) not the people only "known" in connection with it. I must also say, there is no indication that this candidate had much if any impact other than as just another also ran. I particularly disagree with the argument put forward by Sdornan: the article California recall election, 2003 and even California recall election results, 2003 will always be notable and articles, so all 163 candidates get biographies so that we can provide some color to the main story? Carlossuarez46 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Granted, this article could use improvement, but just because this man was not a democrat or republican does not mean that he fails WP:N. — 128.12.69.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:46, June 26, 2007 (UTC).
Comment Ed Binns, Ed Chapman, Ed Choate... okay, Ozgod, what's the pattern here? (Say, I hear a horse yelling, "Wilbur!!! Help!!!) Mandsford 23:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my view, major party losing candidates for Senate are notable, but for minor party losing candidates, it depends on the results. The article says "10,831 votes -- the most of any 3rd party candidate," but avoids giving the percentage, which is 0.59 percent. That's not notable by any reasonable standard.DGG 01:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)DGG 04:45, 29 June 2007 (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.