Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John B. Kimble

Add links
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 no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John B. Kimble[edit]

John B. Kimble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 2. (Discussed four years ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kimble.) I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sufficiently notable per NYT mention (I only added one cite). Collect (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is sufficient; and if the article is slightly edited to show the subject's work as a scientist researching hormonal rage syndrome etc and not primarily as a political candidate the notability question is moot on all aspects and the article should stay. There is no question that there has been national and even worldwide attention given to this man during the 1996 elections and the 2000 elections for his unorthodox and novel campaign strategies. Keep the article in my opinion as he is notable.69.243.59.171 (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)— 69.243.59.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete The NYT coverage appears to be about the (admittedly amusing) fact that Kimble's campaign manager in 2000 was the wife of an opponent. This is the stuff of one-off trivia. I'd be willing to consider his notability on a separate basis if this article covered his "work as a scientist researching hormonal rage syndrome," but I see no notable coverage of his work in this capacity, and I can't help but look askance at "keep" votes that have as their basis arguments like "he's not notable in the context of the current article, he's notable in this completely, totally unrelated context." (no offense intended there) Let's be frank: if this guy's campaign manager in one failed election campaign in 2000 hadn't been his opponent's wife, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation, because that simple bit of trivia is what generated the NYT coverage, and the NYT coverage is all that makes this interesting. Beyond that, all coverage appears very local. Delete. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The man offered to pose in playgirl magazine in 1996 during his first campaign against Mr. Wynn. This made National news in 1996 and was even worldwide according to a Google search. Then with the 2000 election he also made National news for having Mr. Wynn's wife as campaign manager. The article from viewing ask.com has been on wikipedia for a number of years and is notable and noteworthy. WidgetMidget (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)— WidgetMidget (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perennial candidate who is covered each time he runs, therefore not a BLP1E candidate. NYT article is hilarious and of course an excellent reliable source demonstrating notability outside of his local district. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets general notability guidelines for the playgirl and wife campaign manager events. Here's another source that can be used San Jose Mercury News article. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essentially his claim to fame is a single event. Aside from that, he appears to have never held office and WP:POLITICIAN is pretty clear that candidates for offices are not notable for being candidates. Delete, or redirect to the appropriate election page. Syrthiss (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should be kept because the subject has more than one notable action contrary to what the above editor has stated. The first international event was the Playgirl event which I may add to the article. It offended many Republicans in his state from published accounts but the man was on Hard Copy and the BBC and other national news media in 1996 and then in 2000 he was on the Today Show as well as the Daily Show and other National news outlets. I agree that he does get news media each time he runs as stated above. With the fact that he is a Scientist first and not specifically a politician the Wikipedia notability standard should remain. Just an observation. Badpuppy99 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)— Badpuppy99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. The comment above says that he is a scientist first, but no evidence of notability as a scientist has been presented. This man's only notoriety arises from being a serial losing political candidate, and from allied stunts like offering to pose in Playgirl. Per WP:POLITICIAN, that is not enough. That clause is there to stop Wikipedia being used as a campaign tool and, from the number of SPAs concerned with posting and defending this article, that is what is going on here. I concede that enough lost elections and enough stunts might provide Screaming Lord Sutch-type notability, but Kimble is not there yet. JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF and WP:POLITICIAN. The linked NYT and Cumberland Times newspaper articles don't provide enough nontrivial coverage of the subject (rather than his opponent's ex-wife) to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Sailsbystars. He's a 7-time Congressional candidate, including 4 times where he won the nomination. Definitely not a case of WP:BLP1E, because he was involved in several distinct notable elections. -LtNOWIS (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The principal interest in having an article on Wikipedia appears to come from his campaign. He's not a politician, until he's elected (which on present evidence will be somewhat after the heat death of the universe he's an academic that falls well below WP:PROF. We already deleted this article, written by a WP:SPA, and it was swiftly re-created by another WP:SPA, and the deletion review was from an anon, also with no other activity. But the reason for deletion is not the blatant astroturfing it's the lack of any non-trivial independent reliable sources about the subject. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NYT is "trivial"? Collect (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Trivial" in this context refers to the depth of coverage of the subject rather than to the respectibility of the publisher. The NYT article says only that he's white, that before this contest he was a two-time loser, that he offered to pose for Playgirl, and that he hired his opponent's wife. It's a very short article and it's mostly about other things (what this says about the opponent's marriage). So what it says about the subject is more than zero but it comes across to me as not very deep or detailed coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NYT is not trivial and we must not only look at the article because of the evident notability that is present but the individuals who deleted the article in what appears to be a rather prejudicial deletion. In articles that I have read concerning the man it is stated that he has "Researched hormonal rage syndrome and the similarities between humans and animals". There also seems to be an undercurrent of animosity from certain individuals who are not acting with impartiality or reason. The above statement and the Playgirl incident and having Wynn's wife clearly meet notability guidelines and just because someone has only posted about one or two subjects does not make them less credible. Having friends agree with deletion also looks bad and we do have to remember that in 2007 the original and different article was deleted with only three people voting. 69.243.59.171 (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC) )— 69.243.59.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak Delete - I accept that perennial political candidates, even perpetually unsuccessful ones, can become notable through their sheer persistence (or rather, news coverage of it). But I don't think this one's reached that stage yet. There is some significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources, but it doesn't seem to me that there's enough to pass the WP:BIO guideline. Robofish (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the NYT article is not enough, but the other sources (including the San Jose Mercury News) would certainly seem to put this over the top. It's pretty clear he passes WP:N for the wide range of coverage of two events (playgirl, hiring his opponent's wife) so not a BLP1E Hobit (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll also note (as some delete !voters have also done) that not passing WP:POLITICIAN doesn't prevent him from getting an article under WP:N's umbrella. The Washington Post has coverage of his views and stances, so we have sources to write an article that is more than just "he did these two things". Hobit (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy. BLP1E applies also. Stifle (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the one event here? I'm seeing at least 2 distinct ones... Hobit (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This editor named Guy clearly has it in for the article and it is obvious that the article should not be removed. The result of the deletion review was Keep and it should be kept. There are many items of interest such as the Playgirl incident and then the wife incident etc and not just one "single event" as some of the delete people have said erroneously. 151.196.186.65 (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)— 151.196.186.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak keep. There's a whole bunch written about this guy relating to the stunts he's pulled to try to get elected. In addition, after some digging I did locate some coverage of Kimble from before the whole Playgirl thing (see here). I know the man doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, but he does probably meet the WP:GNG. CHeers, everyone. lifebaka++ 21:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think he's notable enough for the number of times he's stood in the elections to very senior offices, and he will be known to many. Most of all, I think the article is of some value to Wikipedia Pi (Talk to me! ) 04:30, 19 February 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_B._Kimble&oldid=1137952633"