Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Jagla
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 GFDL requires history merge to correct name of Stan Jagla, which may be AfD'ed afresh if anyone wishes. Everyone should note the lesson learned: DO NOT write an article on a subject if you aren't even sure of his correct name. Xoloz (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected local politician. While mentioned in coverage of the election, I don't believe he passes Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria for Politicians. Failed {{prod}} as the only contributor to the article, a WP:SPA, objected. Toddst1 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NO more "unelected" as Jill Morganthaler, who has never held an elected political office of any kind. Your augments are spurious and with out merit considering the fact both, by virtue for running for major federal office is notable. I have shown more than enough cites, by major newspapers and media to justify the fact that Stan Jagla is just as notable as Jill. I feel it is balanced and necessary to that have the bios of both, quantified and on the ballet for Democratic nominee for Congress. IT STAYS. HAL is not IBM 06:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentRedirect to article about the Illinois 6th Congressional district. The observation that "Wikipedia is not the news" comes to mind, and it's often invoked when someone feels the need to write an article about a car crash or a murder that happened on, say, December 3, 2007. Granted, a congressional election is important and being a candidate in the Democratic primary is important. But is it encylopedic? Do we need articles about Steve Jagla or Jill Morgenthaler at this point in their careers? If this were an article about someone running for a parliament seat in France, I don't think people would care. It would make more sense to merge these into an article about the Illinois 6th Congressional District. However, if you think that the 6th Congressional District isn't worthy of an article, then the candidates for its representative are even less worthy. Mandsford 13:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess, only one candidate gets the entry and gets "gushed" over rather then a fair and balanced treatment, by wikipeida, of this major upcoming primary, which is a little less then two months away. But thats not notable enough in the strange land of wikipedia? What is the reason for wikipida, is it knowledge or is it just a tool of partisan operatives? This goes the heart of credibility and innate fairness of wikipeida to be non-bias and balanced. If Stan Jagla entry is deleted by Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and only the Jill Morgenthaler article is left standing, then the facts speak and wikipeida is really just a tool for partisan politics.HAL is not IBM 15:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that someone should "nominate" Jill Morgenthaler as well. If its someone other than the nom of this article, then we can have a primary of sorts, so that whoever gets the most "keep" votes gets to keep their article until after the primary. And for the benefit of those humorless fidgets preparing to write a long response about how Wikipedia is not a vote, I am "joking". Mandsford 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm don't know how, but I will nominate the Jill Morgnthaler article for deletion. Bear in mind if the Stan Jagla is removed, then it's almost automatic that the Jill Morgenthaler article should be removed as well for the same reasons, logic and fairness which common sense would suggest.HAL is not IBM 16:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that someone should "nominate" Jill Morgenthaler as well. If its someone other than the nom of this article, then we can have a primary of sorts, so that whoever gets the most "keep" votes gets to keep their article until after the primary. And for the benefit of those humorless fidgets preparing to write a long response about how Wikipedia is not a vote, I am "joking". Mandsford 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would make more sense to merge these into an article about the Illinois 6th Congressional District. However, if you think that the 6th Congressional District isn't worthy of an article, then the candidates for its representative are even less worthy. ---User:Mandsford
- I guess, only one candidate gets the entry and gets "gushed" over rather then a fair and balanced treatment, by wikipeida, of this major upcoming primary, which is a little less then two months away. But thats not notable enough in the strange land of wikipedia? What is the reason for wikipida, is it knowledge or is it just a tool of partisan operatives? This goes the heart of credibility and innate fairness of wikipeida to be non-bias and balanced. If Stan Jagla entry is deleted by Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and only the Jill Morgenthaler article is left standing, then the facts speak and wikipeida is really just a tool for partisan politics.HAL is not IBM 15:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles on Illinois' 6th congressional district and Illinois's 6th congressional district election, 2006 already exist. — goethean ॐ 17:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Stan Jagla, the actual name of the Roselle business man in question[1].Speedily delete or redirect to Stan Jagla since User:HAL is not IBM has reproduced the content at Stan Jagla rather than moving the article as was requested. References to the ample media coverage of Stan Jagla should be added to the article. Author of the article may want to get his facts straight before having Wikipedia servers and its mirrors distribute false information. — goethean ॐ 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is Stan is on the ballot for Democratic nominee for congress. Thats a Cold, bold face fact. Fact,it would be fundamentally unfair and smacking of bias to have the Jill Morgenthaler retained, and the Stan Jagla article removed. That will be unacceptable and indicative of bias and POV pushing if it should happen. Both candidates have never held elective public office and both are notable for being on the February 5th 2008 primary ballot. Now Goethean is suggesting retaining the Jill Morgenthaler article, fine. But, For him to advocate the removal or blending the Stan Jagla article makes self evident, the agenda Goethean has and NPOV information and fairness, in this case is not one of them.
Finally here is some of the media coverage Stan Jaglar as received, listed here for the satisfaction of Goethean, the Jill advocate.
Steve Jagla has received significant press coverage to qualify.
Chicago Tribune
More Tribune coverage
Pioneer Press
US Chamber of Congress
Rollcall
Daily Herald
Daily Herald
So, based on wikipeida policy Steve Jagla is notable enough to be on wikipeida and needs to be retained. Thank YouHAL is not IBM (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Please calm down and read what I typed before freaking out. I said that the Steve Jagla article should be speedily deleted because you have reproduced the content of the Steve Jagla article at Stan Jagla and besides, Steve isn't the subject's name. It's Stan. I hope that this is sufficiently clear. — goethean ॐ 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is Stan is on the ballot for Democratic nominee for congress. Thats a Cold, bold face fact. Fact,it would be fundamentally unfair and smacking of bias to have the Jill Morgenthaler retained, and the Stan Jagla article removed. That will be unacceptable and indicative of bias and POV pushing if it should happen. Both candidates have never held elective public office and both are notable for being on the February 5th 2008 primary ballot. Now Goethean is suggesting retaining the Jill Morgenthaler article, fine. But, For him to advocate the removal or blending the Stan Jagla article makes self evident, the agenda Goethean has and NPOV information and fairness, in this case is not one of them.
- Agreed to move to Stan Jagla as per the suggestion of of goethean This seems reasonable as long as the Stan Jagla article is still tied to the Jill Morgenthaler article.HAL is not IBM (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Orange you glad Mailer Diablo didn't say ":Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached."? I am. Mandsford (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get it. — goethean ॐ 18:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not notable unless he wins the primary. I accept that a major party candidate for a seat in the national legislature is notable, but not just one who has not yet become the actual candidate.DGG (talk) 09:45, 9 December 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.