Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mhair S. Dekmezian

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.--Wizardman 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mhair S. Dekmezian[edit]

Failed candidate for the Texas state seat. Since he did not win, he is not notable. WhisperToMe 03:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he scored 1,018 votes? I could get 1,018 votes just by putting my name on the ballot paper. - Richard Cavell 03:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - he scored more votes than all previous libertarian candidates in that district, something that should be noted in the wiki I suppose. He also gained much more media coverage than previous libertarian candidates, actually taking part in the debates with the Democratic and Republican candidates. He is a minor politician, yes, but one none the less. After all, how many races has Lyndon Larouche won? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evan7257 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
delete Based on a google search, one can find NO references that are not one of the following: candidates directory and voter guides (WP:NOT a directory); or material created by the candidate or the party the candidate ran for (not reliable sources per WP:RS). As there is a complete lack of reliable source, an encyclopedic article about this person cannot be created. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see his Rice University biography at Here --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there is other coverage as well Here Evan7257 06:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So? Jim Henley had more coverage, and his article was deleted. WhisperToMe 17:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What goes on in other articles doesn't matter. We have to decide based on the merits of the sources in this article. And since that article is long gone, I can't read it to compare it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norton, I can access it for you - I am an admin. Also, deletion and addition of articles can establish precedent. WhisperToMe 05:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - It was? That doesn't seem right. Well, if that is the precedent ... Then again, it is common for a Democratic candidate to run and lose while still gaining coverage. Dekmezian was unique in that he gained so much media attention despite being a third party candidate. Evan7257 18:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he hasnt really done anythin. bein at uni is not notable an the article looks like self promo. look at whos started it an how many theyve done. --Zedco 09:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although he ran in an election, he only scored just over 2% of votes, and does not seem to have done much since. If he becomes more notable, then I'd reconsider. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 10:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO. What, if I ran as a state rep on the Satanist Party platform, I'd be notable solely on the strength that I had outpolled all previous Satanist Party candidates? Oh boy. RGTraynor 14:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - I know the subject of the article personally so my opinion shouldn't count as a vote, but I think that the rationales for deletion given here don't quite measure up. The Libertarian Party is a major political party (3rd after the blue and red teams, not the satanists) and there does seem to be a consensus on Wikipedia for including candidates, so to delete them simply for losing doesn't seem very logical to me given that notability doesn't come and go. Unless I am very much mistaken this was not created by the candidate himself and even if it was that is not an argument based on the merits of the article, given that all the info is cited. Savidan 15:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Few people would consider the Libertarians a "major" anything, and they certainly don't get the third most votes in the land; I'd say the Greens have that locked in now. There are specific criteria for politicians in WP:BIO, which this subject does not meet. RGTraynor 16:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - reply at issue here is not whether or not the Libertarian Party is an important political party. At issue is whether or not there is enough reliable source material about which an encyclopedia articla can be written, in-so-far as that source material is written itself by people unrelated to the subject, and in-so-far as the amount of material contained therin is enough to make anything more than a stub of an article. There does not appear to be in existance said source material about this person. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment In the US, neither the Libertarians or the Greens have counted as major. Anyone from one of them who wins a seat will of course be notable, and in my opinion anyone who loses but does about as well as the other two. (maybe over 1/3 the vote), or , of course, who is notable otherwise. DGG

- reply What is notable about Dekmezian, however, is that even though he only received 2 percent of the vote, he was recognized and referred to in local media as a major candidate. Evan7257 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder Please remember that determining if you get a Wikipedia article isn't determined by how many votes you get in an election, or if you win an election. Its whether you are the subject of multiple media reports. Losers can still can get press coverage. He was interesting enough that there are at least two good articles on him. You have to slog through his 2,000 GHits under his various name combinations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- reply Two stories over the same event do not count as "multiple" non-trivial citations. There is not enough contained in these citations to build an article around. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the notability of the event. DGG 04:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two is multiple, its not singular. Most of the article comes from the school article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:32, 29 March 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.