Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Creswell

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. The consensus seems clear that this person hasn't passed the bar of WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Gregory Creswell

Gregory Creswell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local politician who has never held elected office. Despite the length of the article and the numerical quantity of citations, there is almost no independent coverage of Creswell himself, as opposed to local political issues with which he is tangentially involved, at best. The GNG requires significant, reliable coverage of the topic, and this coverage doesn't exist. Creswell is a perennial candidate at the local and state levels in Michigan who has never received a significant amount of the popular vote. His claimed role in the 2006 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative appears to be that of a local organizer, nothing more. There's a cluster of single-purpose accounts, mostly associated with Michigan Libertarian articles, who keep removing the notability tag and adding every mention of Creswell they can to the article, but there's just nothing to build on. I've been engaged with this article for over a month (see Talk:Gregory_Creswell#Notability) and no in-depth coverage of Creswell has been brought forward. I suppose Libertarian Party of Michigan would be a valid merge target, but there's almost nothing to merge. Mackensen (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete While there is long spread out coverage of Creswell, it is either too little on him, or too incidental. Some things do not even add up. Like did he move out to Macomb County or parts of Oakland County to run against Sander Levin in 2014 and then move back to Detroit so he can run for the seat vacated by Banks. If Creswell wins the election for Banks vacated seat, he will be notable. That seems unlikely since he has never garned more than 3% of the vote in any election, but it could happen in theory. Until them, Creswell will not be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2017(UTC)

There is no evidence cited that he moved. Residency in the Congressional district is not a qualification for US House candidates: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/Filing_Req_for_US_Rep_428517_7.pdf --Truthtests (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Sufficient outside sources to keep; but probably edited down to a much shorter stub just that he's noting he's a perennial candidate & political activist in MI; given sufficient sourcing for those points. 70.92.230.94 (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)— 70.92.230.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Which sources in particular, and why? What's the claim to notability? Mackensen (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Popularity is not the sole measure of notability. If it were then the editors here arguing for deletion would quash any new idea or person proposing that idea, regardless of its eventually demonstrated merit... such as heliocentrism and Copernicus. Also context is key: Creswell IS notable in Michigan Libertarian Party politics, ergo Michigan politics, ergo libertarian politics. He has distinction for being "the first candidate in Michigan history to run in a Libertarian primary election." Why do we want Wikipedia to fall in lockstep to the dictates of mainstream acceptable 'knowledge?' like Google and Facebook filtering out and suppressing ideas and people they don't like? Leave Creswell be. He's plenty significant to a significant subset of humanity: those who want their knowledge real, wide, and deep. Bwisok (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Voters deserve a chance to know about the candidates. They also trust wikipedia for impartial coverage of the candidates and issues. Deletion would serve no purpose other than to fuel charges that Libertarians are all racists and extremists. 02:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC) "Csharer (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)"— CSharer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a vehicle for righting great wrongs. Mackensen (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"Deletion would serve no purpose other than to fuel charges that Libertarians are all racists and extremists" is the most absurd and pathetic keep rationale I can recall seeing on this project ever.

• Keep I hardly know where to begin. This discussion is tainted from the start by opening with false comments such as, “There's a cluster of single-purpose accounts, mostly associated with Michigan Libertarian articles, who keep removing the notability tag and adding every mention of Creswell they can to the article…” This surprised me since I have been paying close attention to the article for the past month, and the aforementioned notability tag has been up there every time I looked. I carefully browsed through the edit history and failed to see a single removal of the tag other than yesterday and on March 26. Are you counting my reversion of apparently erroneous edits by Bwisok as one of those removals? The edit history will show that I immediately replaced the tag myself out of respect for the process.

Since the overwhelming majority of edits are by myself and Redandready, I gather that you have decided to call me part of the aforementioned “cluster.” Yes, I am very interested in working on articles pertaining to libertarianism, and I am from Michigan. My username hardly disguises this, but my edits are not, “single purpose” I have edited articles on other subjects, and the fact that I have spent such a disproportionate amount of time on libertarian subjects is, in part, because they have been disproportionate targets of deletion efforts. I would be surprised to learn that an article about a Republican or Democratic general election candidate for Governor was ever deleted in an AFD. I know that isn’t sufficient to presume notability, but the standard is applied more strictly outside those parties. Rendering an NPOV concern.

My first two paragraphs are not relevant to the notability of the subject, but having this as the opening to an AFD discussion is prejudicial and can sway less experienced editors. Policy indicates these are arguments to avoid. ADHOM

The relevant matter is the notability of Gregory Creswell. For starters, Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan spent a significant amount of time on this article when it was created. I was a novice, but did a lot of work on it, but so did many others. I wasn’t experienced then, but clearly more experienced editors found Gregory Creswell to be a notable subject. At the time the public discourse on the MCRI was fresh in their minds. Notability is not temporary NOTTEMPORARY. Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Getting to old sources is a challenge, but they exist and many have been cited in the article.

There is independent coverage of Creswell himself. The overwhelming number of sources that include him include the causes he involves himself with, that doesn’t make him less notable; people are notable because of the activities they involve themselves with. He has been sought after for comments for that reason. There are articles from reliable sources including the News Herald, Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press. Broadcast media interviews are cited too.

In regards to, “His claimed role in the 2006 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative appears to be that of a local organizer, nothing more.” Perhaps I missed one, but the sources I see supporting his significant involvement in MCRI don’t have Creswell making this “claim.” The journalists are making the claim about Creswell. The standard of his success is not in the area of winning the offices for which he ran. In 2006 his run for Governor was a means of facilitating the passage of MCRI, and that effort was overwhelmingly successful. For instance, his radio commercials were used to promote it. His contribution to MCRI was substantial, and the outcome is part of the enduring historical record in Michigan law. This was the original reason this article was deemed notable by those working on it several years ago.

Now he is the first libertarian in Michigan to run in a primary. Apparently the only one in the state. Being the first at something is notable, however easily the opportunity avails itself.--Libertyguy (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

...clearly more experienced editors found Gregory Creswell to be a notable subject. This is not true and you've provided no evidence for this extraordinary claim. It would be more accurate to say that no one gave the article much attention after you created it in 2007. Even if this were true, it's not relevant now. The project as a whole assesses notability.

...the sources I see supporting his significant involvement in MCRI don’t have Creswell making this “claim.” You're continually evading the issue here. Our article claims his role is important and that he's notable in part because of it. I countered that no reliable source supported this claim. No one rebutted this. You still haven't rebutted it. Notability is not inherited.

Being the first at something is notable... Sometimes this is true, but it's not true as a blanket statement. Are there sources treating this as a big deal? Is this act finally giving Creswell reliable, in-depth, third-party coverage?

After all this time, if Creswell's notability were so obvious you'd think someone would have established it. They haven't because it can't be done. He's at the fringe of Michigan politics and no one's really taken notice of him. I'm not passing judgement; I'm stating what I see to be an uncontested fact. Collecting every trivial mention doesn't get him over the bar WP:POLITICIAN. Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

In a nutshell what I see happening here is equivalent to the scene in the movie The Matrix, where the agents (~Official Story enforcers) send out sentinels to clean up any rogue elements (~fringe ideas) that have hacked into and/or threaten execution of the main program. GNG, mostly, is Wikispeak for legitimizing the exclusion of information that threatens the ruling oligarchy's Holy Sanctum(s) of Official Knowledge (largely systematic disinformation), Wikipedia being a substantial pillar. Google and Facebook and Amazon are other stalwarts of this effective censorship project, especially now with their deciding for users what information they are going to consider valuable enough--applying their own customized, self-imposed 'GNG' rules--to let users see.

So, Mackensen et al, let me ask you this: Down the road a few months or years, is your Wikipedia Big Brother going to have you evict, say, Ron Paul, or the Libertarian Party, or truthers such as Dr. Kevin Barrett, Dr. David Griffin, me, all the alternative movements that stand against your exclusionary monolithic citadel of sanctified fake pop reality... by using the current notability-popularity standard? "Never got more than 5% of the vote. Fringe. Outahere." Of course, that's kind of the point, isn't it? Creswell and the Libertarians DID get 5% here and there. "We mustn't let the people know. In fact, let's raise the threshold to 10% ASAP!"

If Wikipedia stands any chance of achieving intellectual independence, hence surviving, articles like Creswell's must stay. Perhaps you can suggest copyediting improvements, but it clearly meets the GNG.Bwisok (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but what you're writing is antithetical to what Wikipedia is as a project. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox, nor a crystal ball, nor a vehicle for righting great wrongs. If you think Wikipedia should in fact be those things then you should get those policies changed, but policies they remain. If you think Creswell meets the GNG then you should explain why. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Mackensen rebuts “... not true and you've provided no evidence for this extraordinary claim… It would be more accurate to say that no one gave the article much attention after you created it in 2007.” The evidence is in the edit history and you have provided no evidence for the negative you assert. Not relevant now? The change is in the direction of being more notable, not less as I indicate in addressing the partisan milestone of being the first Libertarian to run in a special election.

Mackensen rebuts “…You still haven't rebutted it.” I believed the supporting sources now in the article are evidence enough, but you are correct that I didn’t rebut it here, so now I will pull some sources from the article citing his roll:

This TV Show has him on as Ward Connerly's Michigan counterpart....

"The program begins at 3:38 . A promotional video plays first. The segment devoted to Gregory Creswell starts at 20:03 Strickland Love, Darchelle (April 1, 2004). "Politics Aside (With Ward Connerly & Gregory Creswell". Detroit Cable Communications Commission. Detroit, Michigan. Retrieved April 17, 2017."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xofTkaPuoM

and here he is described as Detroit organizer (which you concede) but that isn't the whole story. The note in the article explains how to access it.

"Brand-Williams, Oralandar (January 13, 2004). "Affirmative action backers, foes clash". The Detroit News. Michigan. Retrieved 2017-04-01."

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?s_site=detnews&f_site=detnews&f_sitename=Detroit+News%2C+The+%28MI%29&p_theme=gannett&p_product=DTNB&p_action=search&p_field_base-0=&p_text_base-0=Affirmative+action+backers%2C+foes+clash&Search=Search&p_perpage=10&p_maxdocs=200&p_queryname=700&s_search_type=keyword&p_sort=_rank_%3AD&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date%3AB%2CE&p_text_date-0=2004

He exploited his nomination as a candidate for Michigan's highest office in its third largest party to push the issue that the four other candidates tried to avoid. This was evidenced by the fact that his campaign budget was largely devoted to radio commercials that promoted the MCRI:

Michiganlp.org, Webmaster (October 2006). "Previous Elections-2006 Radio Commercials (Gregory Creswell and Scotty Boman)". Libertarian Part of Michigan. Retrieved 2015-08-17. and Michiganlp.org, Webmaster (September 2006). "Previous Elections-2006 Radio Commercials (Creswell for Governor, fear not!)". Libertarian Part of Michigan. Retrieved 2015-08-17.

http://www.michiganlp.org/Radio%20Ads/October,%202006%20-%20Greg%20Creswell%20for%20Governor.mp3

https://cfrsearch.nictusa.com/documents/278412/details?type=scanned&page=36

Radio Commercial In Use". Archived from the original on December 7, 2006. Retrieved 2007-07-26.. lpwm.org (website).

https://web.archive.org/web/20061207024340/http://gregcreswell.lpwm.org/copy_of_Audio/copy_of_radio_ad.mp3/view

--Libertyguy (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Libertyguy: To be clear, you're claiming that he's notable because he campaigned for a measure which was widely successful--in fact, orders of magnitude more successful than his own candidacy. You're basing this claim on an appearance in a single local television show, and a newspaper write-up of an altercation between himself and some others which occurred two years before the election. This is weak stuff and we've been over it on the talk page. If Creswell was important to the MCRI reliable sources would say so, and often. That he's the first Libertarian to run in a special election, or a primary, isn't a big deal. It's a direct consequence of Gary Johnson's showing in the 2016 election, combined with the resignation of Brian Banks. Creswell is uncontested; his candidacy has received no media attention beyond routine mentions. Here, for example, is the Detroit News on the election: Libertarian Gregory Creswell of Detroit is also seeking the 1st District state House seat. Creswell ran for governor in 2006 and sought unsuccessfully three different congressional seats in 2012, 2014 and 2016. That's it. No discussion of the Libertarian primary; no indication that it's important. Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

References

• Keep [Part 2] Okay, sorry I got off track with the broadside against Wikipedia as a corrupt integrated system of disinformation in my reply to Mackensen there. Let's stay within the actual Wikipedia system as it exists, and examine the Creswell article vis a vis the GNG rules, as they are spelled out, one by one in summary form:

• Significant Coverage? Yes. Self-evident: References section.
• Reliable Sources? Yes. Self-evident: References section (albeit some mainstream).
• Secondary Sources? Yes. Self-evident: References section (albeit many mainstream).
• Independent of Subject? Yes. Self-evident: References section.
• Encyclopedia-Worthy? Yes. Highly discriminate, organized, pertinent information.

Every one of the notability criteria is met, and obviously. All one has to do is read the article. With the possible exception of the last criterion, "Encyclopedia Worthy," which is somewhat subjective.

We definitely have an ideologically and even popularly important political figure in Mr. Creswell for all the reasons stipulated.

Put yourself in the shoes of an old hard copy encyclopedia editor. In that medium, Creswell definitely goes in, his achievements are significant (to liberty and to politics in general--Michigan and libertarian) for the time and place in which he exists. Though admittedly in a print publication space is premium, so he would get maybe a couple of paragraphs... let's say 500 words.

An electronic medium has no such space constraints beyond common sense. If the writer wants to add substantial historical and biographical information, what's the problem. The point is that the Creswell article is self-evidently notable according to Wiki's own GNG. Popularity is not notability and vice versa. Creswell STAYS. Bwisok (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Forgive me, but this is argument by assertion. The quantity of sources doesn't prove anything, nor does the article's length. Most of the sources in the references section aren't independent of either Creswell or the Libertarian Party, or they're simple factual assertions sourced to the Secretary of State. Most of the article is taken up with Creswell's views, which don't go toward establishing his notability. If it's truly self-evident then you should be explain why he's notable, and to enumerate what significant, in-depth coverage he has received in reliable sources. I haven't done this because in my view (a) he's not notable and (b) that coverage does not exist. It's on you, or other editors arguing for keep, to explain why he passes the GNG. You say he has achievements--what are they, and who says so? Saying it's "self-evident" doesn't cut it. Mackensen (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  Bwisok do not leave TWO bolded "keep" responses. It is too easily read as a double vote, even when you append a "[Part 2]" to it. Please change the second "Keep" to something like "Follow up comment". Alsee (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Oh dear! I feared it would come to this. There is independent coverage of Creswell himself. Just consider a couple episodes from these TV programs as examples.

On WGVU he was the only guest on an episode of Newsmakers. He was the newsmaker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If5WSIcFeGM

On WCMU he was the soul guest on this episode of “Meet the Candidates.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aurFZkBZj18

On this episode of Politics Aside he was on as Michigan spokesperson for MCRI. He is not regarded as being “tangentially involved” as the lead to this discussion reads. Unfortunately, the YouTube user stuck a stump speech in front but the program that starts 3 minutes and 38 seconds into the vid is independent of the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xofTkaPuoM

I looked at the edit history too. There just isn’t anyone taking down the notability tag since one time in March--- other than right before it was nominated for deletion.--Redandready (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• We've discussed this on the talk page. Two appearances on public broadcasting don't amount to much (not knocking WCMU, it's a great station). What news is Creswell making? How do these programs make him notable? Mackensen (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)q

Still Keep Well sure we've discussed this on the talk page and you only asked me a question. You said, “What is this, a clip from Public-access television?” I answered with some detail, but you said nothing back. Now you’re saying 2 appearances on public TV don’t amount to much. So now are you stepping back from what you said with the original paragraph at the top? “there is almost no independent coverage of Creswell himself.” I shared these as examples of independent coverage. Why wouldn’t these be independent? Are you calling Creswell a partial owner of the stations because they are public? You’re now asking me to other questions about the programs, but I presented them as examples in response to a tag that said, “Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention.” You say you don’t want to knock WGVU-TV, so are saying it is a reliable source. Do you think WCMU-TV isn’t? The whole program on each of these was about Gregory Creswell. He was the only guest. Why isn’t this significant coverage of him beyond its mere trivial mention?

What news is he making? The interview speaks for itself and the host believed he was notable enough to have on the program. Being a candidate for the highest office in Michigan and the issues he raised at the time, including his Civil Rights Initiative activity was notable in the view of the program hosts. For Wikipedia the coverage beyond significant coverage, beyond its mere trivial mention, is notable.

These were given as examples - not a comprehensive inventory. He wasn’t the only guest on “Politics Aside”, but being there as spokesperson for the Civil Rights Initiative was significant and beyond trivial mention. The questions asked of him were deep. Speaking of a comprehensive inventory, you made an impressive objective looking table on the talk page, seemingly to save South Nashua (talk · contribs) the trouble of looking. There you have a N under “independent” as if WGVU has some conflict of interest with him. You left “In-depth” blank. Is being interviewed for the whole program not In-Depth enough for your Y? This table gives the impression of something objective, but the Y and Ns are each individual morsels of your opinion. The table doesn’t include WCMU-TV, so I placed it into the reflist so you can put it in your table. You don’t think Politics Aside is about Creswell. Are you looking for stories about his private life? I appreciate your hard working trying to delete something that took much more work to create, but the folks in this AfD shouldn't take charts and graphs as gospel--Redandready (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If anything, all AfDs this complicated should have graphs like those. Even if one does not agree with everything inside of it, the graph definitely helped Mackensen show what he's talking about and prove his case, I see no need to prove it for him. South Nashua (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean you needed to prove anything to him, I was only trying to show how taking the table as gospel would be lead astray.--Redandready (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• KeepWeak Keep' Enough to pass GNG as a notable figure if not as a notable politician given all the external independent coverage. South Nashua (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• @South Nashua: Forgive me for badgering, but could you please expand on that a little? The article doesn't discuss Creswell aside from his political activities, and the external sourcing, while superficially quite broad, is very limited in coverage and scope. Mackensen (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC) (Changed to Weak Keep) South Nashua (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Makensen: You're right, my mistake. I was thinking of criteria #1 on NPOL. He definitely meets #3. 50+ external sources, many of which are from independent publications. I've seen articles kept with far less. South Nashua (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• @South Nashua: Thanks for your quick response. There's been quite a bit of ink spilled, here and elsewhere, that question of "significant coverage". For my part I find the raw source count less important than what's in the sources themselves. Many aren't about Creswell at all, or are trivial mentions, or just brief statements of fact from the Secretary of State's website. A fair number aren't independent of Creswell and/or the Libertarian Party of Michigan. I think it would help the closing administrator to know which sources, in your view, help Creswell meet NPOL #3, and why. Mackensen (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Mackensen: Normally I'd agree, but the sheer volume of sources in this situation I think engenders an exception. It's an unusually high number for such an otherwise marginal figure. For me, that's the tipping point. South Nashua (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• @South Nashua: Mind if I try to change your mind? Adding more citations doesn't make someone more notable; he's notable or he's not. Twelve of the citations (20%) are to the Michigan Secretary of State's office, either election results or candidate listings. Those don't help. Another four are required to tell us that there's a special election for a Michigan state house seat. None of these discuss Creswell, except a routine notice that he's running. Three more are about Scott Boman, Creswell's running mate in the 2006 gubernatorial election. I count about fifteen citations about racial preferences. Most of them concern Creswell's views, or the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. None of them, so far as I can tell and no one has corrected me, contain in-depth coverage of Creswell's involvement in the campaign. Read over Gregory Creswell#Racial preferences. It's all about his views, because that's all there is. He wasn't an important figure in the MCRI or someone would have written about it. Our article describes him as a "spokesperson, volunteer coordinator, and an organizer". Nothing wrong with that, but it's not notable, no matter how many citations you add to it. This pattern is repeated elsewhere in the article. This is why the rule calls out "significant coverage"; to avoid situations like this. Mackensen (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Mackensen: Happy to have you try to change my mind. You raise some excellent points and I've changed my viewpoint to Weak Keep in response. To be honest, I just skimmed over them and not all of them seemed "good" for a lack of a better word, as you correctly mentioned above here. If there are a million "bad" ones, it's the same as if there are zero; as you rightly pointed out, more doesn't mean better. However, it seems like there are a few decent ones and the fact that secondary sources actually care about his opinion means something. If I spouted off opinions about whatever, I doubt newspapers would mention it. Is there a way to break down just how many of these truly are trivial mentions and how many are legitimate? It looks like you've already started. Maybe like a grid or something. South Nashua (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• @South Nashua: I've done the first ten as an example of this kind of work; it's on this discussion's talk page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gregory Creswell. Here's a good example of what I'm talking about. A sentence in the article reads Creswell expanded his efforts in 2006 as an outspoken petitioner and candidate. The support for this is a letter Creswell wrote to the Detroit Free Press, and an article about Prop 2 being struck down by a federal court in 2011. Happily, that article is republished online at [1]. It describes Creswell as a Detroit man who collected signatures for the MCRI. He's one of several people quoted in the article. This is weak sourcing, and you'd think if Creswell were important to the MCRI he'd be quoted toward the front of the article with the other principals. Tackling the other fifty would no doubt turn up more of this. If you think it would be helpful I'm willing to tackle it. Mackensen (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Mackensen: I think that graph is exactly what I was looking for. If you could do the others, I think you could probably convince me. I don't want to guarantee, but it would help illustrate to me what you're saying. At the very least, it would help aid the discussion here. South Nashua (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• @South Nashua: I've finished it and updated the talk page.Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

That is an excellent representation of your concerns. At this point, I think a Weak Delete is appropriate. For me, the waters are muddy right now. This might be able to be improved, there's definitely a lot there, but it needs some work. South Nashua (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment There have been examples of significant coverage provided of significant coverage, and more can be found in this article. Mackensen has said that "None of them, so far as I can tell and no one has corrected me, contain in-depth coverage of Creswell's involvement in the campaign." But people have made such corrections. I understand that this editor disagrees with those corrections and responses, but they exist. Examples of involvement are given. Being an organizer, and spokesperson for MCRI is involvement. This editor concedes this, but then gives the opinion that these are not notable, after initially saying they don't exist. There is more here. Using a Gubernatorial campaign as a vehicle for pushing a ballot proposal with commercials is also "involvement." Mackensen is treating disagreement with a point the same as non-existence. Another example is the in depth coverage on some TV programs. The criticism then becomes the fact they were on public, rather than commercial TV. This doesn't change the fact that this coverage exists.

I point this out, not as an Ad hominem argument, but to make sure other editors arriving at this discussion don't take these denials at face value, but look back into the discussion and comb through the article to see that these sources exist. I urge anyone arriving into this discussion, as South Nashua has, to do this.

One more point. There are a number of sources that don't mention Creswell, but they pertain to subject in the article and provide reliable support for the context of facts surrounding particular activities of his. There are a number of other sources that are not in depth but show involvement in the MCRI. The fact that he is quoted or mentioned that often by reliable secondary sources on the issue is additional support of his involvement over a period of years. I'm not saying those sources alone establish notability, but in combination with more in depth sources they strengthen this assertion.--Libertyguy (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Libertyguy: You're right, I do disagree, because after all this time you don't really state what these sources are, or why they're significant. Yes, being an organizer and spokesperson for MCRI is "involvement." So's handing out leaflets on its behalf. Mere involvement in the MCRI isn't notable, as I've said repeatedly. The MCRI is notable. Is Creswell's involvement in it? Why? What sources say that it is? This is where we part ways. These are the sources which I say don't exist. Trivial and routine mentions in newspapers and television programs don't help to establish notability. WCMU running a "meet the candidates" program is far different from an in-depth program on, say, CBS, talking about Gregory Creswell, a primary mover behind the MCRI. Let's go over the WP:GNG again (I think we've all conceded that he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN):

• Significant coverage: This would be books, articles, or television programs about Creswell. Not ones that he appeared, or was simply interviewed on, or in which he's mentioned in passing. These are sources which are about him. Sources which would explain the notable thing which he's done.
• Reliable: The sources used in the article mostly meet this standard, with the exception of Ballot Access News which appears self-published. The use of MCC Chronicle is fine inasmuch as it's evidence for Creswell's own views.
• Sources: As with "Reliable."
• Independent of the subject: This would exclude anything written by Creswell, and anything published by the Libertarian Party of Michigan. It can be used as evidence of his own views, but not for claims about notability. If the LP put out a statement calling Creswell a transformative politician or some such, we wouldn't accept that claim unless independent sources (the Free Press or the Detroit News, for example) made it as well.
• Presumed: Not all that relevant to this discussion, as even ticking all these points still only creates a presumption, though that cuts against the argument made by you and others that the totality of the sources should count for something.

• Significant coverage is an important standard, and you seem to concede that it's a problem: The fact that he is quoted or mentioned that often by reliable secondary sources on the issue is additional support of his involvement over a period of years. I'm not saying those sources alone establish notability, but in combination with more in depth sources they strengthen this assertion. That points to a merge with Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. This should be an easy question to answer, but looking above I don't see it: why is Creswell notable, and what in-depth coverage has he received which supports that claim of notability? Best, Mackensen (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I would add that Ending Racial Preferences: The Michigan Story, which is a 440-page book written by someone associated with Toward A Fair Michigan (TAFM) and was deeply involved with the MCRI, makes no mention of Creswell. Edit: For interested newcomers, there's a thorough summary of the articles sources at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gregory Creswell. Mackensen (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Do not understand all the fuss about this article. If I am correct, Creswell is a politician who has never held government office or been elected to a government position, and does not have national coverage. Seems a straight forward delete. Rogermx (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Election to office isn't a necessary or sufficient requirement for notability in Wikipedia. There can be (WP:BIO#Additional criteria) --Truthtests (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• • Never elected or appointed to office, no national recognition of any kind for any actions, good or bad. Rogermx (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Keep (Do the strong vs. week prefixes matter?) What difference a week makes. I removed the notability maintenance template because the article met the burden. There were more reliable secondary sources after the template was placed there than before. Some were mainly about Mr. Creswell.

The timing of this nomination is poor. The article was created in 2007 and is just being nominated at the start of an election cycle where the man the article describes is participating in the first primary for his party. Timing could be perceived as favoring an outcome.

He meets (WP:BIO#Additional criteria)

• The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. He was granted the Spokesperson of Liberty award.
  
• The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. MCRI contributions and Libertarian Party premier primary run asserted in introduction.--Truthtests (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

  This has been hashed out above. "Spokesperson of Liberty" is neither a well-known nor significant award. The importance of his contributions to the MCRI are directly challenged above and on the talk page, as is the importance of standing in an uncontested third-party primary for a state house election. No sources would support the claim that his contributions are "widely-recognized" outside of the Libertarian Party of Michigan. No uninvolved editor is impressed by these claims. Mackensen (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades ^Godric 04:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• DELETE. Tip for others checking this AFD: There are 60-odd links in the reflist, but you can save yourself half the work by skipping URLs to government sites and Libertarian sites. Gross case of junk-source WP:Bombardment. Fails WP:NPOL and standard WP:POLOUTCOMES. I've spent an unreasonable amount of time reviewing the mountain of sources. The pile of Libertarian-party sources are not independent, and thus carry exactly zero weight for Notability. (The award from the Libertarian party to their own candidate is worthless for the same reason.) The government sources are worthless because the government must indiscriminately document all candidates. Voterguides from random private groups also offer indiscriminate listings. The many sources that don't even mention him are irrelevant. Sources with bare passing mentions don't help. The election-coverage he did get was was the negligible attention that any hopeless throw-away candidate would get, and that coverage was essentially non-existent outside of some college news production. He has no meaningful notability beyond being a cliche irrelevant-perennial-candidate who never gets more than (approximately) zero percent of the vote.
  The 'keep' votes above show significant "topic-specific passion", soapboxing, wanting to right-wrongs, and rants that deletion is censorship. I do not believe they offer an impartial evaluation of the sourcing. I do not believe they are representative of the general community consensus. I humbly suggest that they be weighed accordingly. Alsee (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The existence of sources that do not contain significant coverage, does not negate the existence of those that do. Sources can serve a purpose in an article beyond proving notability. Government sources have factual value. A person's political party is a reliable source of what that person's party claims. None of the sources I itemize down page of here are government or Libertarian Party.--Libertyguy (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Classic example of a never-elected minor party local politician - not notable at all. Emeraude (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

There are two problems with your reason. "never-elected" This is a straw man. A person doesn't need to be elected to be notable. For instance GNG only requires significant coverage by reliable sources. The criteria is met, and I have supported this assertion in a bulleted list down page from here.

The second reason, "minor party" has nothing to do with the notability criteria, and its partisan. As far as I know there isn't a de jure partisan litmus test, though it is starting to look like there is a de facto one; editors have their political bias and some wish to see it reflected in the content by deleting articles about people based on their party affiliation. If wikipedia is to become a partisan publication designed to serve the interests of only two parties a whole can of worms would be opened starting with an end to any tax-exempt status.--Libertyguy (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Preserve My previous post adequately addresses the issue of notablity; it was not an argument by assertion, rather an argument by self-evidence. Like pointing to the color green, an ostensible definition. I merely pointed to the self-evident fact of Creswell's notability by reference of independent media sources of stature. Those seeking to delete this fine article--rather than perhaps shortening, i.e actually suggesting edits (as all the editors I know see their jobs)--seem to be on a mission to expunge independent voices.

How is that in keeping with the mission of Wikipedia to be a people's compendium of knowledge? Wikipedia is not meant to be exclusionist. Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be a pack of corporate-paid trolls purging ideas or movements or political figures that don't fit into its hierarchy of selectively cultivated official stories. Nobody I know trusts, any longer, Wikipedia to tell the truth about any significant political entity or event.

Eliminating fine work like Creswell's article only further serves to discredit Wikipedia as any sort of independent standard or compendium of human knowledge. Hence I appeal to the declining numbers of Independents who still hope for Wikipedia's resurrection as a valued source of knowledge to join the battle and Keep Creswell. User:Bwisok (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Note to the closing administrator: this is Bwisok's third bolded comment; two "keeps" and a "preserve", which is presumably also a keep. @Bwisok: is a pack of corporate-paid trolls meant as rhetoric or are you accusing someone of something? Mackensen (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
•   @Bwisok: as I tried to tell you last time, do not leave responses that resemble multiple attempts to vote. Use something like "Comment" or "Followup comment", not multiple keeps and preserves. BTW, it's unhelpful when you attack the editing community as some sort of purge-conspiracy by paid trolls. And I warn you: If you continue to advocate "battle" or otherwise persist in a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, the community is likely to revoke your ability to edit at all. Alsee (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Keep again. I assume “relisted” means we must start fresh since all new comments must be below the line created by Winged Blades ^Godric. May we respond to comments that were originally made above the line? What is the correct way of doing this?

There are two main lines of argument here. I will focus on GNG here. The mantra is that there is no significant coverage. There is and I will itemize some examples here. These are each cited in the article. Links to sources are in the footnotes. In some cases one needs to create an account to view archived articles, but they can be viewed with no expenditure.

An honest person must agree that significant coverage exists. An honest debate must start with recognizing this obvious fact. We can and have argued subtleties, but denying a fact doesn't make it disappear.

Creswell is the primary topic in these Reliable Secondary Sources

• Comments at from (1:55) Martino, Fred (September 27, 2006). "WGVU Newsmakers: Greg Creswell". WGVU Newsmakers. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retrieved April 17, 2017.

WGVU is a reliable secondary source. The entire program is an interview with him.

• Seymour, Ruth (October 17, 1982). "Now it's their time to chip in". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved 2017-04-23.

The Detroit Free Press is a reliable Secondary Source. This is only about Creswell and his wife.

• Nicholas, Davis (October 2006). "WCMU Meet the Candidates: Greg Creswell". WCMU-TV. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. Retrieved May 4, 2017.

WCMU-TV is a reliable secondary source. The entire program is an interview with him.

According to GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The portion in bold has been over-looked by some AfD participants.

Significant coverage where Creswell is not the main topic of the source material.

• Brand-Williams, Oralandar (January 13, 2004). "Affirmative action backers, foes clash". The Detroit News. Michigan. Retrieved 2017-04-01.

Clearly not Trivial mention. The Detroit News is a reliable secondary source. This isn't exclusively about Creswell, but describes an incident in which his actions are the focus of the story.

• The program begins at 3:38 . A promotional video plays first. The segment devoted to Gregory Creswell starts at 20:03 Strickland Love, Darchelle (April 1, 2004). "Politics Aside (With Ward Connerly & Gregory Creswell". Detroit Cable Communications Commission. Detroit, Michigan. Retrieved April 17, 2017.

Clearly not Trivial mention. Detroit Cable Communications Commission and (With Darchelle Strickland Love) is a reliable secondary source. This isn't exclusively about Creswell, but the interview is in depth with Creswell representing MCRI in Michigan.

• Bulleted Brand-Williams, Oralandar (January 11, 2004). "Race ballot campaign will start Monday". The Detroit News. Michigan. Retrieved 2017-04-01.

Clearly not Trivial mention. The Detroit News is a reliable secondary source. This is about the launch of a ballot initiative that he is involved in starting. He is one of two people quoted on it and he is quoted more extensively then the other organizer, Leon Drolet.

• Lansing State Journal, "Petition on race policy to begin:Group seeks to end affirmative action in state". Archived from the original on April 26, 2004. Retrieved 2007-07-28. By O. Brand-Williams, Published January 11, 2004

The Lansing State Journal is a reliable secondary source. Here Creswell is one of two persons quoted to represent MCRI's side of the story.

• Langton, Charlie (October 18, 2006). "Michigan Gubernatorial Debate 2006". Community Media Network (CMN). Michigan. Retrieved April 27, 2017.

CMN is a reliable, but not well-known source. The moderators are well-known and represent well-known media outlets: Hosted Charlie Langton of Fox 2 News and WWJ radio. Panelists are Bill Gallagher (WJBK Fox News 2 Detroit), Paul Kubicek (Oakland University), Noah Ovshinsky (WDET 101.9 FM) This is the only Telivised Gubernatorial Debate in 2006 to which all candidates were invited, and in which the majority participated.

• Davis, Mathew (August 21, 1996). "Reactions mixed on impact of latest stadium plans". Detroit Free Press. p. 8. Retrieved 2017-04-23.

Detroit Free Press is a reliable secondary source. Crewswell isn't the primary topic, but he is mentioned and quoted extensively and a quote from him is displayed in bold on the sidebar of the article.

Other more borderline sources may have distracted participants in this AfD from the blatent significant coverage indicated. The use of less significant sources does not deminish the significance of others cited. Reasonable people can argue about the significance of these. I list them here because they are still reliable, and have some significance (my opinion). A million zeros doesn't add up to anything, but a million halves add up to 500 thousand. In my humble opinion these are half way there.

Mention borderline. Not Trivial, but not real extensive.

• Jennifer, Chambers (July 2, 2011). "Court rules race ban on college admissions illegal". The Detroit News. Michigan. Retrieved 2017-04-01.

The Detroit News is a reliable secondary source. He is one of a few MCRI people quoted.

• Hofman, Kathy Barks (October 14, 2006). "Granholm stretches lead over DeVos". Lansing State Journal. p. 1. Retrieved 2017-04-23.

The Lansing State Journal is a reliable secondary source, and this is was on the Front Page. Not trivial. That Creswell was one of only three candidates that showed in the poles. Admittedly not extensive and tyhe major party candidates were still the main topic.

• Brand-Williams, Oralandar; Trowbridge, Gordon (September 22, 2000). "Cop shootings hurt public trust". "The Detroit News". Retrieved 2017-04-01.

The Detroit News is a reliable secondary source. He is quoted, but not the primary topic. Borderline.

• Byrne, Mark (June 2, 2006). "'American Idol' boasts many voices; U.S. politics should, too". The Times Herald. p. 5. Retrieved 2017-04-23.

The Times Herald is a reliable secondary source. The author of this Op/Ed advocates for including Creswell in debates, but Creswell isn't the only mention.

• Prentis, William (October 30, 2006). "TV station's candidate debate misleading, left out 3 parties". The Times Herald. p. 5. Retrieved 2007-04-23.

The Times Herald is a reliable secondary source. The author of this Op/Ed advocates for including minor party candidates in debates, but Creswell is the only one named.

• Thorne, Daric (August 2006). "March of Progress: Conservative Spectrum" (PDF). MCC Chronicle (Vol. 1 issue 4). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 28, 2007.

The MCC Chronicle is a reliable secondary source. There is an article is only about Creswell and Devos, but the publication is not well known, so borderline.

• Schultz, Marisa (November 3, 2011). "Cain's plan: tax reform, vision and charisma". The Detroit News. Retrieved 2017-04-14.

The Detroit News is a reliable secondary source. He is quoted, but not the primary topic. Borderline.

• Creswell, Gregory. "MICHIGAN CIVIL RIGHTS INITIATIVE: Will state proposal hurt women?". Detroit Free Press. Michigan. The full text of the letter was posted on the "michigancivilrights.org website" The letter and other comments are preserved on the "votesmart.org website"

This is all him and the Detroit Free Press is reliable secondary source, but it is in the form of a letter from him, so borderline.

• "Say nice things about Detroit". The Detoit News. October 11, 2012. Retrieved 2017-04-14.

The Detroit News is a reliable secondary source. He is quoted, but not the primary topic. Borderline.

• Creswell, Gregory (July 19, 2006). "Taxing his patience". The Metro Times.

The Metro Times is a reliable secondary source. This is all Creswell, but in the form of a letter.

I will have other points to make, but its time to move past the notion that significant coverage is absent. It exists. That is settled.--Libertyguy (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

  Libertyguy please strike or alter this second bolded keep. A relisting invites new people to respond, and it allows continued discussion and new evidence by previous participants. However it does not allow a second vote, nor anything that might easily mislead a closer into believing it was an additional !vote. Alsee (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Alsee No deception intended. Is this modification OK? --Libertyguy (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• A few brief comments. Relisting simply means that the discussion stays open another week or so. The discussion does not "reset" in any way. Regarding does not need to be the main topic of the source material, I don't think that's being overlooked. The issue is the absence of significant coverage of Creswell and his accomplishments. Nothing in your summary of the sources, which doesn't differ all that much from mine, does anything to address that issue. You also haven't commented on the absence of Creswell in Carol M. Allen's book. This absence appears to severely undercut claims about Creswell's importance to the MCRI, as does the passing mention in the Detroit News from 2011. I must disagree with your summary of that article. You say "He is one of a few MCRI people quoted." The article actually describes him as a "[Detroit man] who gathered signatures for the Proposal 2 ballot initiative." The MCRI people quoted are Gratz and Connerly. If I've got a friend who rang doorbells for Hillary Clinton last year, I suppose I could describe them as a member of the Clinton campaign, but that would be grossly misleading. Mackensen (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

First you say that the coverage I mention is not being overlooked. Then you claim, "The issue is the absence of significant coverage of Creswell and his accomplishments." I just gave examples of that which you claim is absent. Denial doesn't make them disappear. then you bring up a book. This is a straw man. Significant coverage doesn't mean universal coverage. Coverage doesn't need to be in every publication or even most. Just some.--Libertyguy (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This AfD is starting to look silly. A million news articles won't change the fact that Creswell is a candidate for public office, but has never held an elected office in the government. Does Creswell have any public role with the Libertarian Party of Michigan? Power~enwiki (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It is true that "A million news articles won't change the fact that Creswell is a candidate for public office, but has never held an elected office in the government." This is a straw man. A person doesn't need to be elected to be notable. For instance GNG only requires significant coverage by reliable sources. The criteria is met, and I have supported this assertion in a bulleted list up page from here. Yes he has held a few offices within the Libertarian party and the Party political offices table at the bottom of the article indicates this. He is currently "LEC At Large Director" according to the party's website: http://michiganlp.org/officers-and-staff--Libertyguy (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Minor-party candidate for a variety of local positions. He has never gained more than 3% of the vote. References are mostly typical local election coverage. Does not meet basic notability standards.Glendoremus (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor. You have made it clear that this drive to delete is at least partially motivated by partisan bias. NPOV should apply to an AfD but clearly it doesn't. "minor party" has nothing to do with the notability criteria, and it's partisan. As far as I know there isn't a de jure partisan litmus test, though I can see that there is a de facto one; editors have their political bias and some wish to see it reflected in the content by deleting articles about people based on their party affiliation. If Wikipedia is to become a partisan publication designed to serve the interests of only two parties a whole can of worms would be opened starting with any legal claim to tax-exempt status. GNG doesn't require a minimum percent of the vote.--Libertyguy (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Libertyguy: Please don't be ridiculous. We are under no obligation to provide free coverage to non-notable minor politicians. You are the only editor here pushing a POV. AusLondonder (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't claim Wikipedia is obligated to "provide free coverage to non-notable minor politicians." The term "non-notable" begs the question. I responded to the implied assertion that the subject's party affiliation was a reason to deem him non-notable and a reason to delete the article. You stated, "Minor-party candidate for a variety of local positions." Also, you judged the article without reading it. US Congress and Governor are not "local positions."--Libertyguy (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Despite a huge bombardment by COI libertarian editors and a plethora of junk sources designed to overwhelm, this individual is simply not notable. The bad-faith attacks by conflicted editors serves only to justify ignoring their !votes. Creswell completely fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read the top message. Note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. There are bad arguments made, but why does this person completely fail WP:NPOL and WP:GNG?--Truthtests (talk) 23:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: You have over a hundred of AfD edits since you made one on this project page. Are you being diligent in reaching a judgement? Did you read my factual correction?--Truthtests (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I have seen some disturbing developments. An editor has slammed another editor and Wikipedia. Editors on both the “Keep” and “Delete” sides have made accusations. Some have used “minor-party” affiliation as part of an argument, and accused those asserting “Keep” to be conflicted. Editors have opinions outside Wikipedia, but an AfD is not a war zone.WP:NOTWARZONE
• Merge if Keep fails. I have not changed my position on keeping the article, but in the event consensus for keeping the article is not reached, merging it as a redirect to Libertarian Party of Michigan would be the next best choice. While those proposing deletion don’t find him to be notable enough for an article, I think we can agree that he is notable among Libertarians in Michigan, and a topic within an article. The two candidates who got fewer votes than Creswell in the 2006 gubernatorial election met with such an outcome - Douglas Campbell (Michigan politician) & Bhagwan Dashairya but these redirects went to the Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006. I suggest the Libertarian Party of Michigan instead since Creswell has a more current relevance (at least among Libertarians), as their first primary candidate.--Truthtests (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead created a section on the primary. I feel like that was a nice idea irrespective of the way this AfD turns out.--Redandready (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• KEEP Really interesting article! Looks like hes done a lot and people wrote about him. Remember hearing about him when I was little.--64.88.89.40 (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment There is no consensus here. Most of the editors have treated this like a ballot and have not responded. This is the first comment in two days. I recommend that the discussion be closed with the status of the article remaining unchanged.--Libertyguy (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Relisted discussions typically stay open for an additional seven days; we're still in that window. This discussion already has more--and fuller--comments than most. There's a wealth of material for the closing administrator to work with; hopefully he or she will read over it very carefully. For my part, I think it's fair to say that there's consensus among uninvolved editors. Mackensen (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Note to closing editor, Revisiting this remarkable AfD, I want to say that User:Mackensen is correct, editors who I know to work regularly at AfD, including John Pack Lambert, Emeraude, and AusLondonder, have weighed in with brief, policy-based arguments for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Note to closing editor, Three bad examples. None making policy based arguments: John Pack Lambert jumps from one AfD to the next making snap judgements based on false assumptions. His comment in this one is based on the false assumption that a person must live in a Congressional district to run for that seat. Truthtests corrected him, but he never replied. Emeraude uses the subject’s party affiliation and non-election to office as notability criteria. Neither is part of Wikipedia’s notability policy. I pointed this out, and have yet to receive a response. After criticizing the bad manners of some pro-Keep editors, AusLondonder asserts "simply not notable." Argument by assertion is not policy based.--Libertyguy (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• I can't speak for them, but I think it's likely that they're persuaded by the original nomination, and by subsequent comments in the discussion. John Pack Lambert's primary assertion isn't based on residency, but on this: While there is long spread out coverage of Creswell, it is either too little on him, or too incidental. That argument rests squarely on the GNG. Election to office is a typical criteria for evaluating politicians, because it's a comparatively easy hurdle. It's enumerated in WP:NPOL, which is a guideline and reflects a common outcome. While not a policy per se, it carries considerable weight. Absent that, you've got to this article over the "significant coverage" bar in the WP:GNG. Anyone arguing "not notable" is persuaded by the extensive discussion of the sources. They're not required to regurgitate all those arguments Their comments will certainly be given more weight than the keeps that were simply outright advocacy. Mackensen (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Delete As non-notable. He has repeatedly been an unsuccessful candidate for office on the ticket of a minor/fringe political party. Despite copious coverage for his many candidacies and support for things like failed ballot initiatives, all coverage can be characterized ads local, routine coverage of his unsuccessful political activities.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Keep My man Creswel is a part of our history. I can't think of any other black men running for Governor in our state. And its referenced real good!--64.88.4.75 (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)— 64.88.4.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment I feel this coverage is significant and should be included with the examples other editors have shown. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61KEFX-4gqM&feature=youtu.be A nice interview with Mr. Creswell and his running mate.--Redandready (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Redandready, the link you provided is Creswell himself speaking on WHFR. WHFR is very low power student run college radio. It's not a particularly significant or reliable source. To the extent WHFR says anything about Creswell, the intro highlights that Creswell isn't getting any coverage in Reliable Sources. The fact that Creswell has to scrounge this low to campaign, and that this is about the best of the sourcing we have for the article, illustrates just how insignificant he was in the political race. It illustrates how he hasn't left any lasting mark on the historical record. It illustrates how he fails our Notability guidelines. The problem is that some people want more Wikipedia coverage to help advance the Libertarian party and Libertarian candidates, but that's backwards. These candidates will get more coverage in Wikipedia either when they win, or when they lose with enough independant Reliable Source attention to establish Notability. Alsee (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. As well said by Rogermx, this is a never elected politician, it's a cut and dry delete. Sure he may be colourful, sure he may be part of an anonymous editor's history. But, this doesn't make him notable enough for a global encyclopedia. Ifnord (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you Ifnord. People have to remember that Wikipedia is not designed to be the respository of all human knowledge. An interesting and worthwhile story does not automatically translate into a notable story. Wikipedia decided on criteria for notability and I think we should stick to them Rogermx (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Notability guidelines don't require that a person be elected, and being elected does not mean that person is notable.--Libertyguy (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: My goodness, what an unfortunate situation this AfD is. I spent quite a bit of time sorting through the many references proffered here and in the article, all the negative commentary here, and all the rest of it. After that, I must conclude that Creswell does not actually pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. He seems like a very interesting individual, though. My evaluation is that the sources can be summarized as 1) primary sources (interviews are primary sources, as are libertarian party sources, and his own websites), 2) passing mentions, or 3) not mentioning the article subject at all. The government sources are also not comprehensive coverage. Wikipedia articles are summaries of what reliable and independent sources say about a subject, not what a subject says (or their close associates say) about themselves. If there isn't reliable and comprehensive independent coverage available, then there simply isn't content available to write an encyclopedic article. What is there now is a summary of what he says about himself, and his political viewpoints and a synthesis of what primary sources and non-comprehensive coverage says. With respect to the Five Pillars, this article fails both WP:5P1 and WP:5P2. Waggie (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you overlooked these. Not government, Libertarian, or self-published sources.

Collapsed long list of sources which were substantially or completely posted above, in comment of 20:03, 7 May 2017

Creswell is the primary topic in these Reliable Secondary Sources Comments at from (1:55) Martino, Fred (September 27, 2006). "WGVU Newsmakers: Greg Creswell". WGVU Newsmakers. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retrieved April 17, 2017. WGVU is a reliable secondary source. The entire program is an interview with him. Seymour, Ruth (October 17, 1982). "Now it's their time to chip in". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved 2017-04-23. The Detroit Free Press is a reliable Secondary Source. This is only about Creswell and his wife. Nicholas, Davis (October 2006). "WCMU Meet the Candidates: Greg Creswell". WCMU-TV. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. Retrieved May 4, 2017. WCMU-TV is a reliable secondary source. The entire program is an interview with him. According to GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The portion in bold has been over-looked by some AfD participants. Significant coverage where Creswell is not the main topic of the source material. Brand-Williams, Oralandar (January 13, 2004). "Affirmative action backers, foes clash". The Detroit News. Michigan. Retrieved 2017-04-01. Clearly not Trivial mention. The Detroit News is a reliable secondary source. This isn't exclusively about Creswell, but describes an incident in which his actions are the focus of the story. The program begins at 3:38 . A promotional video plays first. The segment devoted to Gregory Creswell starts at 20:03 Strickland Love, Darchelle (April 1, 2004). "Politics Aside (With Ward Connerly & Gregory Creswell". Detroit Cable Communications Commission. Detroit, Michigan. Retrieved April 17, 2017. Clearly not Trivial mention. Detroit Cable Communications Commission and (With Darchelle Strickland Love) is a reliable secondary source. This isn't exclusively about Creswell, but the interview is in depth with Creswell representing MCRI in Michigan. Bulleted Brand-Williams, Oralandar (January 11, 2004). "Race ballot campaign will start Monday". The Detroit News. Michigan. Retrieved 2017-04-01. Clearly not Trivial mention. The Detroit News is a reliable secondary source. This is about the launch of a ballot initiative that he is involved in starting. He is one of two people quoted on it and he is quoted more extensively then the other organizer, Leon Drolet. Lansing State Journal, "Petition on race policy to begin:Group seeks to end affirmative action in state". Archived from the original on April 26, 2004. Retrieved 2007-07-28. By O. Brand-Williams, Published January 11, 2004 The Lansing State Journal is a reliable secondary source. Here Creswell is one of two persons quoted to represent MCRI's side of the story. Langton, Charlie (October 18, 2006). "Michigan Gubernatorial Debate 2006". Community Media Network (CMN). Michigan. Retrieved April 27, 2017. CMN is a reliable, but not well-known source. The moderators are well-known and represent well-known media outlets: Hosted Charlie Langton of Fox 2 News and WWJ radio. Panelists are Bill Gallagher (WJBK Fox News 2 Detroit), Paul Kubicek (Oakland University), Noah Ovshinsky (WDET 101.9 FM) This is the only Telivised Gubernatorial Debate in 2006 to which all candidates were invited, and in which the majority participated. Davis, Mathew (August 21, 1996). "Reactions mixed on impact of latest stadium plans". Detroit Free Press. p. 8. Retrieved 2017-04-23. Detroit Free Press is a reliable secondary source. Creswell isn't the primary topic, but he is mentioned and quoted extensively and a quote from him is displayed in bold on the sidebar of the article.

--Libertyguy (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment This isn't supposed to be a majority vote, but the "Delete" votes are exceeding the "Keep" votes, so I am putting in a request to the closing editor. I am hoping some of the editors calling for deletion will express support for this suggestion. As mentioned by others, this has been done with articles about two other candidates from the 2006 Gubernatorial election. Instead of deleting the page outright, redirect to Libertarian_Party_of_Michigan#First_Partisan_Primary_Candidate. Others have suggested this. This article is not an orphan. It would be advisable to have those links direct to some information about the subject. The edit history would be preserved in case a change in this persons coverage became sufficient to change consensus on his notability.--Libertyguy (talk) 04:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  I have no objection to a redirect. It's reasonable for Libertarian Party of Michigan to mention this race, even if Creswell is not independently Notable. I also see no reason to expect Creswell will stop his perennial runs for office, which very well may attract Notable coverage in the future. Alsee (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  I suggested that possibility in my nomination statement. Mind you, we're talking about a sentence or two. Out of curiosity, is there a source independent of the Libertarian Party explicitly reporting that Creswell is the first Libertarian to stand in a primary election in Michigan? I've been looking but I hadn't seen one. Mackensen (talk) 11:09, 18 May 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.