Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dennis (California politician)
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 delete. SpinningSpark 15:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John Dennis (California politician)[edit]
- John Dennis (California politician) (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)
Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Any coverage of him comes not from his business career, but from having the temerity to challenge challenging Nancy Pelosi twice, which makes him nothing more than a paper candidate. She cleaned his clock defeated him both times by the same 85%-15% margin. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable failed politician. We could redirect to the appropriate election, but there are two such: United States House of Representatives elections, 2010#California and United States House of Representatives elections, 2012#California, at both of which he is already mentioned. Or we could redirect to the company he claims to have co-founded, Humanscale, but I could find no independent confirmation of his connection with it. (The article link is to Politifact which is self-supplied information.) Overall I think a simple Delete is the best course. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 15% is a score that places Dennis above paper candidate status. Notability is derived from being a Republican having support from Cindy Sheehan and being Anti-War. Can Muboshgu's colloquial `cleaned his clock' be part of a Wikipedia editorial discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.48.179.40 (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for redacting. This was giving me the impression for a minute you were showing bias in favor of one candidate. 15% is really significant, compared to the percentage obtained by third parties in general, barely reaching 5% so it is quite an achievement in light of the incumbent overwhelming odds. Cindy Sheehan's endorsement is notable because anti-war movement rarely supports Republican candidates so there is some unusual coalition there. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.48.179.40 (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He was not a third-party candidate. He was the other major-party candidate, making 15% a rather pathetic showing. In any case, we must not judge according to whether he deserved to be notable, but rather whether he was notable, as measured by the independent reliable-source coverage he received - or didn't receive. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly my point. 15% for the Republican candidate in a general election (or Democratic candidate) is a paltry sum. Meanwhile, his only coverage is about his candidacy, which means he fails WP:POLITICIAN, and there isn't enough about him to pass WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He has coverage in NYT, SFChronicle, SFWeekly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.48.179.40 (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there has been coverage, but as Mubosgu pointed out, all of it is about his candidacy. He is not notable for anything except his "quixotic" (a favorite media word) campaigns. He wouldn't get any coverage at all except that his opponent is so high-profile. Her notability doesn't rub off on him. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit now that quixotic returns even more hits on Dennis and Cindy Sheehan (16% against Pelosi in 2008). So MSM labels citizens quixotic when they go against an entrenched incumbent or are anti War/Patriot Act. That is sad but at least, one can hear about them since Wikipedia will snuff that information out if it does not fit the classic republican/democrat worldview. I'll know to look at Wikipedia for information on inanimate things but not on anything else where you can continue to play your little prima donna roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.48.179.40 (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there has been coverage, but as Mubosgu pointed out, all of it is about his candidacy. He is not notable for anything except his "quixotic" (a favorite media word) campaigns. He wouldn't get any coverage at all except that his opponent is so high-profile. Her notability doesn't rub off on him. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He has coverage in NYT, SFChronicle, SFWeekly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.48.179.40 (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly my point. 15% for the Republican candidate in a general election (or Democratic candidate) is a paltry sum. Meanwhile, his only coverage is about his candidacy, which means he fails WP:POLITICIAN, and there isn't enough about him to pass WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He was not a third-party candidate. He was the other major-party candidate, making 15% a rather pathetic showing. In any case, we must not judge according to whether he deserved to be notable, but rather whether he was notable, as measured by the independent reliable-source coverage he received - or didn't receive. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - mostly because it's okay to be a notable failure. I don't think he's a paper candidate, as suggested above, in fact there is at least one source that plainly contends he was not. His campaign received coverage, like this, this and this, though admittedly in relation to other people and other things where the subject is an "also" mention or one of a number of examples given. I don't think this is really a matter of the subject inheriting notability from his opponent - he was endorsed in his own right by politicians like Ron Paul and his candidacy (though mentioned with reference to his opponent) is covered in its own right. The only question, then, is whether a campaign (or two) counts as "1E" for the purposes of WP:BLP1E. I don't think it does, but... I'm not about to die in a ditch over it. Stalwart111 05:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Roll Call doesn't contend he wasn't a paper candidate, it says his campaign was aiming to portray him as a legitimate candidate, which his 15% of the vote shows wasn't the case. All of those sources are about his campaign and not about him as a person. In fact that Roll Call article makes a great case for WP:INHERIT because the premise was about candidates who were challenging House leaders, and goes on to mention Wayne Powell, another paper candidate who only received coverage for challenging Eric Cantor. And then it goes on to talk about Terry Phillips and Tony O'Donnell, who actually are notable for their own careers outside of their longshot candidacies against Kevin McCarthy and Steny Hoyer respectively. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Muboshgu, you aren't helping your cause here by continuing to repeat "paper candidate". He WAS a legitimate candidate, because he was the candidate of one of the two major parties. The commonly used term used for people like him - who undertake longshot/hopeless runs against apparently unbeatable opponents - is "sacrificial lamb". In any case, none of these semantics matter. What matters is whether he is notable under Wikipedia criteria. Since all of his press coverage was about the campaign - and was more about Pelosi than about him - and since he appears not to have been notable for anything else, I contend that he is not notable and his article should be deleted. Others may interpret his press coverage differently. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would've used the term "sacrificial lamb", but it's wikipage directs to "paper candidate" for this usage. It doesn't matter that he was nominated by one of the two major parties. Many House districts are so severely gerrymandered that one of the two major parties simply can't realistically compete. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The wikipedia article Paper candidate says "The paper candidates themselves do no campaigning and neither incur nor claim any expenses.". That was not the case with this guy; he did campaign. (BTW and FYI, gerrymandering in California was eliminated by a new, non-political system of drawing districts - which is why seven incumbents lost in the recent election. Pelosi wins so overwhelmingly because she represents San Francisco - and because no candidate with a legitimate chance cares to challenge her.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Dennis certainly did campaign for himself, and you're right about the non-partisan redistricting in CA, which doesn't exist in most states. Perhaps sacrificial lamb (politics) should be a separate article from paper candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The wikipedia article Paper candidate says "The paper candidates themselves do no campaigning and neither incur nor claim any expenses.". That was not the case with this guy; he did campaign. (BTW and FYI, gerrymandering in California was eliminated by a new, non-political system of drawing districts - which is why seven incumbents lost in the recent election. Pelosi wins so overwhelmingly because she represents San Francisco - and because no candidate with a legitimate chance cares to challenge her.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would've used the term "sacrificial lamb", but it's wikipage directs to "paper candidate" for this usage. It doesn't matter that he was nominated by one of the two major parties. Many House districts are so severely gerrymandered that one of the two major parties simply can't realistically compete. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Muboshgu, you aren't helping your cause here by continuing to repeat "paper candidate". He WAS a legitimate candidate, because he was the candidate of one of the two major parties. The commonly used term used for people like him - who undertake longshot/hopeless runs against apparently unbeatable opponents - is "sacrificial lamb". In any case, none of these semantics matter. What matters is whether he is notable under Wikipedia criteria. Since all of his press coverage was about the campaign - and was more about Pelosi than about him - and since he appears not to have been notable for anything else, I contend that he is not notable and his article should be deleted. Others may interpret his press coverage differently. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Roll Call doesn't contend he wasn't a paper candidate, it says his campaign was aiming to portray him as a legitimate candidate, which his 15% of the vote shows wasn't the case. All of those sources are about his campaign and not about him as a person. In fact that Roll Call article makes a great case for WP:INHERIT because the premise was about candidates who were challenging House leaders, and goes on to mention Wayne Powell, another paper candidate who only received coverage for challenging Eric Cantor. And then it goes on to talk about Terry Phillips and Tony O'Donnell, who actually are notable for their own careers outside of their longshot candidacies against Kevin McCarthy and Steny Hoyer respectively. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's probably not a bad idea. Perhaps those involved here should thereafter work together on a new article. You've both basically covered my original point and my disagreement with the term "paper candidate". But you're both right - it doesn't really matter because neither of those terms is used in relation to WP:N. I still think his (marginal perhaps) notability is not a matter of WP:INHERIT but my opinion above was weak for a reason - it's not the most valuable article on WP, but there's enough (for me) coverage to establish WP:N and justify an article. Stalwart111 20:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - Whatever this guy thought he was doing, he passes WP:POLITICIAN criteria by hitting the 15% level. If his campaign was a just a protest or whatever, it was clearly a notable one. I don't really know. But obviously this guy was the republican choice to go up against Pelosi (to crash and burn). A little research will show that 15% is about the expected number when one "sacreficial lamb" is placed up against a giant of the opposite party. This holds true for both parties in entrenched areas. Obviously he's not a paper candidate, therefore he's a legit candidate. The article should stand.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the problem is that he doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN for that very reason - Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability - so he then needs to pass WP:GNG. Unless I've missed something about WP:POLITICIAN and "15%"? Stalwart111 04:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You will find that Democrats in Republican entrenched areas, and Republicans in Democrat entrenched areas pretty much score the same across the board. That 15% figure is pretty typical. I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss somebody simply because they failed (badly) in an election. It was an important election, and he was the Republican candidate. This is for a major national office. If the Republican candidate for President had been a complete unknown, if all things in this article were the same except that it was a presidential election, would we be having this discussion? It is true that simply being a politician does not guarantee notability, and I think that applies 100% to elections for local city councils, judges, county supervisors, etc. I do not think it applies (in this way) to any of the three main branches of the United States Governemnt. If you would not apply this rule in this manner to the Presidency, then it should not be applied in this way to the House or Senate.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I mostly agree with your assessment, WP:POLITICIAN is non-US-centric and has to be - this is enWP not USWP. Don't forget that the same rules have to be applied to my country (Australia) as well as all other candidates in all other elections. As a result, if we added "candidature for national office" we would end up with every failed candidate in every other country. Trust me, some of the candidates who run for national office here would be entirely non-notable - voting here is compulsory so major party candidates can get 30-40% of the vote (by default) without running a campaign.. That's why the fall-back (as always) is WP:GNG - where a failed candidate is considered notable enough in his/her own right then there should be an article for that person. While 15% might be "typical" in the US, adding it as a threshold criteria would open the floodgates everywhere else. Stalwart111 21:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen this argument before - "major party candidates for Congress should automatically be considered notable" - but it has never gained consensus. That leaves us with the automatic inclusions specified in WP:POLITICIAN (namely, that the person actually held national or state/provincial/equivalent office), and failing that, with the requirements of GNG. GNG is the only criterion that applies in this case. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Totally not remarkable. How can a "nominee" "who ran for and lost the race .. of California in 2010. On June 8, 2010, ... became the Republican nominee" possibly be notable. Clearly no one other then the page creator is willing to defend this obscure page. It must go. Leng T'che (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2012 (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.