Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Weed (2nd nomination)

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 KEEP - Nabla 12:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Weed (2nd nomination)[edit]

Non-notable politician who has never held public office. Losing candidate in two Congressional elections. Only source provided is a personal web site. This page was previously deleted last summer. Too long ago for a G4 speedy, probably. DarkAudit 16:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems like spam to me.TheRingess (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Remove this weed, this time by the roots so it doesn't grow back. Clarityfiend 20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - major-party nominee for Congressionl seat is notable enough to keep, without more, for the sake of completeness of our election coverage. This particular article could be better-referenced, but the references are out there. I added some information from the endorsement of Weed by the Roanoke Times and from stories in two other newspapers, which I found without checking more than a fraction of the 27,000 hits on his name (not all of which, of course, are about him). JamesMLane t c 11:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO says: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures". He is not. It further states "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." The coverage here is primarily in his own district. Has he received coverage outside the district, or any coverage outside the election season? The 27,000 hits is just a big number. You clarify that not all are about him. Can you further clarify that those mentions are both non-trivial and from reliable sources? DarkAudit 16:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The references are from an editorial and three news stories in three separate regularly published newspapers. I hope that clarifies that they meet the WP:RS test. Each of the four cited references is focused specifically on Weed, as opposed to something like a story naming him as one of several candidates attending a fundraising dinner. If you look at them, I think it will be clear that each of those four references is "non-trivial". Yes, the newspapers are in that Congressional district. There are many people, in politics and in other fields, whose notability derives from a specific geographic area. Finally, I agree with you that 27,000 hits by itself doesn't prove anything. Most are apparently about Weed, although a few are along the lines of "Richard Jones et al., 'Weed Control Methods'". I mentioned the number as an indication that there are probably additional sources. Today, going a little further into the list of hits, I found this story in the Washington Post about the furor that resulted in the resignation of one of Weed's campaign staffers. JamesMLane t c 19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I may not have been clear enough when asking about reliable sources. I was actually referring to the 27K Google hits, not the sources already provided. I have no doubt that these sources are reliable. when your competition can include the Washington Post, you'd better be. :) DarkAudit 20:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I see that I misread your comment. Obviously, some of the 27,000 hits are not citeable sources, and others are simply lists of candidates, with no additional information. As a follow-up question, let me ask you: If this article were deleted, what would you favor with regard to the information about Weed's political positions? It would be clutter in the Virgil Goode article, which shouldn't get into that much detail about each of his opponents. The coverage in Virginia's congressional elections, 2006 is just a paragraph about each race. If the Weed article were deleted, the reader would have no way of knowing that, for example, Goode defeated an opponent who called for withdrawal from Iraq. I'd consider that an unfortunate omission in our election coverage. Similarly, we'd lose the information that Weed wasn't just some sacrifice candidate put up because no one else wanted to run, but that he defeated an opponent for the Democratic nomination. JamesMLane t c 05:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See WP:LOSE. Election coverage is for Wikinews, not an encyclopedia. DarkAudit 17:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The text you cite, at WP:LOSE, amounts to saying that loss of information isn't an issue when the information isn't actually lost. In the case at hand, I explained why the information would be lost. I don't accept your sweeping generalization about election coverage. We have huge amounts of election coverage -- not just Bush v. Gore and other recent aspects, but older ones like United States presidential election, 1860, elections below the level of President like Virginia United States Senate election, 2006, and even some Congressional elections like Ohio's 2nd congressional district election, 2006. My opinion is that we don't have enough information about the Virginia 5th District in 2006 to necessitate such a separate article, because it can be accommodated in the articles about the candidates. One way or the other, it should be possible for a reader 50 years from now to come to Wikipedia for this kind of historical information about an election. JamesMLane t c 20:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I agree that our election related coverage should be consistent and comprehensive. However, I believe the current general consensus and precedent, per WP:BIO and WP:AFDP, is that losing candidates are not sufficiently notable absent additional evidence of notability. There does not appear to be anything here beyond the usual election coverage. The Washington Post article is not really about him.--Kubigula (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is your interpretation of the consensus that there should be a separate article about the election? that the information about Weed should be incorporated in the article about Goode? or that the information should be removed entirely? I don't see how our election coverage can be consistent if we willingly excise the information about, for example, the contest for the Democratic nomination. JamesMLane t c 23:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  The recommendation of Wikipedia:Candidates and elections was to start with an article about the election. That proposed guideline failed, but I think the reasoning was pretty sound - it's hard to argue that the election was not notable. Currently, there's only a paragraph about it in Virginia's congressional elections, 2006, but there's no reason it has to be that way. If you want to preserve some of this content, I would suggest expanding the section on the election there. If it grows too big, then spin this election into a separate article. If that got too big, then a separate article on Weed would be the logical next step.--Kubigula (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other races described in Virginia's congressional elections, 2006 get only a sentence or two. Expanding the section would give this race more space than all the others combined, so it would be too big from the beginning. Part of my disagreement with many Wikipedians on AfD issues is that I don't share the mindset of We Are the Gatekeepers Who Must Keep Wikipedia Pure by Excluding Those Who Are Unworthy. My orientation, instead, is service to the reader. Given that Weed has run twice, and might run for something in the future, it's reasonable to expect that some readers might search for Al Weed rather than for Virginia's 5th congressional district election, 2006. I'd rather give them the information at Al Weed than redirect them. JamesMLane t c 19:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I still think that coverage of losing candidates is often better dealt with in an article about the election. However, this guy ran in two separate elections and we don't have articles about either. I am convinced by the points raised by James and W.marsh that deletion is not the better course.--Kubigula (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he meets WP:BIO/WP:N [1]. Efforts to save a few kilobytes of space on the server as misguided, as Wikipedia is not limited by the restraints a paper encyclopedia is. We can cover obscure guys like this. If anything it should be merged to an article on the election. --W.marsh 17:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm convinced after looking at sourcing provided by W.marsh. These references need to be added to the article.—Gaff ^ταλκ 21:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO and notability guidelines as explained by W.marsh. RFerreira 05:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.