Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Slavick

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, but merging to Maine United States Senate election, 2006 does not appear to be ruled out, either. Sandstein 06:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Slavick[edit]

Failed candidate for US Senate in Maine who got 5% of the vote. A previous version of the page also discussed his academic career, but he does not meet WP:PROF, as he is not a noted expert in his field and hasn't published a well-known work. He was a Fulbright lecturer, but the Fulbright Program funds dozens, if not hundreds of such lecturers each year. JChap2007 00:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any standing arguments for notability. -- Shunpiker 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 5% for third party candidates is not unusual (or notable, for that matter) in races where there is not a competitive major party challenger. I'm all for a generous definition of notability while an election is under way: People need a real-time reference. But after it's over, if the subject of an article's only claim to notability is that they lost an election, and not even a close one -- how does that article serve the readers of Wikipedia? Who is possibly going to look it up, and to what end? 5% of Maine voters is more than enough to overwhelm "rough consensus" here, but not enough to warrant what would be, in effect, a memorial. If this article is going to be kept, then we need clearer guidelines that will be applied across the board to protect the articles of similarly non-notable candidates that get deleted every day in the absence of a Wiki-literate fan club. Otherwise, a keep decision would enforce an arbitrary bias. -- Shunpiker 18:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I still think this article is more of a memorial than a useful reference, but I'm withdrawing my "delete" vote based on the fact that the bar seems to be lower than I imagined: I found more than a few unchallenged articles for candidates who polled significantly worse in the 2006 Senate elections, and who also appear to be notable only for their lapsed candidacies: Ralph Ferrucci (0.5% CT), Robert Fitzgerald (3% MN), Michael Cavlan (0.5% MN), Ben Powers (0.3% MN), Stan Jones (3% MT), N. Leonard Smith (0.3% NJ), Bill Van Auken (0.2% NY), Emory "Bo" Heyward (0.2% TN), Ed Choate (0.6% TN), Cris Ericson (0.6% VT), Bruce Guthrie (1.4% WA). My main concern regarding the application of AfD to political matters is that the criteria be applied fairly. I don't think it is being applied fairly, but it's probably better to err on the side of inclusion since that bias is at least more obvious, and more easily corrected. -- Shunpiker 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --Dennisthe2 03:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. MER-C 04:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO, what's more than a candidate in the US Senate election. He didn't make enough notability to have an article on Wikipedia. Ter e nc e Ong 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually, 5% in a major election is considered a major accomplishment for a 3rd party candidate in the US and is frequently considered past the threshold of "factor". In California it was the case with Peter Camejo in the 2002 Gubernatorial election where he got just over 5% of the vote (that's why he was allowed to participate in the 2003 recall election debates). --Oakshade 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, this discssion is about this person in particular. Arbitrary thresholds are just that: arbitrary. If this person was a factor in the election, it will have been reported and documented, and you will be able to point to non-trivial published works that discuss this person. If this person was not a factor, then the percentage is irrelevant. Uncle G 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAs the original contributor who fought to have him stay on here for the election, and then shrunk his bio down to mark his relevance to the national election, I would say, he has a place. A small place, but as a third party candidate running against the most popular incumbent in the senate, and still getting 5%, I would say it is worthy of note...small note yes, but noteworthy.--Mitchsensei 06:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was a mis-use of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for candidates to have candidate summaries published. Uncle G 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you advocate keeping a stub that you think should not be expanded and that, looking at the article history, you appear to have shrunk from a longer article. If we do not have a proper article on him (and by your own admission we shouldn't have one) it is better for our readers to discuss him in a larger context. JChap2007 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a place people go to seek information. I can think of a lot more useless information on here than information on a third party candidate for one of the most relevant political institutions on the planet. Now, having said that, I don't think there will be much extended discussion about Mr. Slavick. In fact, this deletion discussion is perhaps the biggest post-mortem his candidacy will get.--Mitchsensei 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In principle we should merge (per proposed guideline) to U.S. Senate election, Maine, 2006, but that doesn't exist. I would not object to that outcome. As for the sentiment toward deletion, I'm ambivalent about the 5% threshold being cited -- to me, an inclusionist, it feels just enough. Nolo contendere, then. --Dhartung | Talk 06:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an arbitrary figure and should not be a criterion. As stated above, if this person was a "factor" in the election, that will have been documented, whatever the percentage of the vote. The documentation of this person is the argument. Vote percentages are not. Uncle G 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mitchsensei.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 5% seemed enough to be notable, even before i found out he was not one of the main teo parties. Definately notable. I can definatly see someone wanting to look him up. Dolive21 14:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Definitely? Really? Whatever for? -- Shunpiker 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a long standing editor on the article, I believe he is fairly notable. He finished in third place in a major election for one of the most important positions in the American government. --Thomas.macmillan 15:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So cite sources to demonstrate that he satisfies the WP:BIO criteria, and actually warrants an article instead of a single line in an election results table, which is all that what you have stated actually justifies. You have not cited any sources at all, not when you edited the article nor here. Uncle G 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Create U.S. Senate election, Maine, 2006 and merge there per Dhartung. It's clear that multiple non-trivial published works are harder to find for a third-party candidate, given the systemic bias of the mainstream media. The notable story here is the election, which obviously needs the element of characterization. --Howrealisreal 16:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Maine United States Senate election, 2006. There isn't a need to create the article because it already exists.--Bobblehead 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. Okay merge there please. --Howrealisreal 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Five percent is nothing, no matter how the keep voters try to redefine success. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and make a redirect to the Maine Senate election article. Even before the mass deletion the only reference for this article was Bill Slavick's campaign website. That fails WP:C&E, not to mention the failing of WP:BIO and WP:PROF. --Bobblehead 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 5% is miniscule Fledgeling 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Any serious candidate for national office in the US should have an article. Even ones that are not so serious probably deserve one too. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely keep. It is an absurd notion that winning 5% of the vote in a state-wide election is a trivial feat. Getting 5% of the vote implies far wider notability. This article has significant potential for growth, and the subject is clearly notable. JDoorj a m Talk 16:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Just above the threshhold of notability. DS 18:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 5% in a national level election is definitely notable enough to justify being on Wikipedia. Sprhodes 20:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. 5% is a good result, etc.

Weak Keep notice the Washington Post article on WP:AfD policy. It mentions this person's article and the television debate. [1]SYSS Mouse 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Oakshade and SYSSMOUSE. I don't think that getting five percent is a priori notable. For major party candidates it is almost impossible to field below 10% because partisans will automatically vote for their party's candidates. However, it is somewhat impressive for a third party candidate he does have election coverage from very faw away so he wasn't just a local phenomenon. JoshuaZ 04:45, 5 December 2006 (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.