Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Russell (Florida politician)
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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John Russell (Florida politician)[edit]
should be deleted as he is a candidate, not an elected official DesertSky85451 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article can be resurrected if he wins. wikipediatrix 23:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until for the election. I get many yahoo news hits, such as [1]. Most importantly, he is running against Ginny Brown-Waite who is tied to the Mark Foley scandal. Thus, this race is being more closely watched. If he loses, put it up for afd. Arbusto 05:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox for hosting candidate blurbs "until the election is over". Nor is it a crystal ball. Biographical articles must satisfy our biographical article criteria now, on their merits. Please cite sources to show that the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies are satisfied. Uncle G 11:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In general, I am quite OK with articles about major party candidates in one-on-one candiate races such as the 2006 house race. A good biography adds to our coverage of races which receive widespread media attention, and are useful to people interested in politics. The problem with this article is not one of notability, but that it looks like a political advert and not an encyclopedia article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a few changes to the original article to try to bring it up to snuff. Obviously a bad article isn't any good, but that has nothing to do with the subject's notability.--Francisx 02:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If the article is poor, it needs to be beefed up, not deleted. He was certainly notable enough to win a primary election, and thus is a major party candidate for the US House. Perhaps the info would be better suited in an article on the election itself, but, until such time there is one, this article ought to be kept. -- Sholom 14:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A massive 29 Google News hits on "John Russell" Florida; all local press, no nationwide media coverage; local news coverage indicate it's not a close race[2], not competitive, and not among even the 50 most closely watched [3] races nationwide; Yahoo returns his own site, local press, and other John Russell's; and tying notability to the Mark Foley scandal via the opposing candidate is a stretch. Does not satisfy any WP:BIO criteria for notability. Sandy 15:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: No one seems to be listing this race as competitive, and the campaign website seems to have nothing biographical about the candidate. So building this article into a semi-objective one seems far-fetched. I don't think the article is useful as is, and it seems unlikely to ever be.Keep: I didn't realize that Russell's opponent had learned about some of Mark Foley's behavior and failed to act on that. That changes the complexion of the race. John Broughton | Talk 18:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Strong Keep: It is a violation of NPOV for Wikipedia to be deleting the bios of major party US Congressional nominees less than 30 days before a General Election. Delete after the election if no assertion of notability follows.Francisx 19:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifically what part of WP:NPOV are you basing this position on? wikipediatrix 20:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it violates the spirit of WP:NPOV for Wikipedia to feature one major party candidate for election and not another. In this instance, it reflects a pro-incumbent POV by default. Moreover, deleting a candidate's bio less than a month before the election could have a measurable effect on the outcome. On a Google search for "John Russell Florida," the Wikipedia page comes up at the top, even ahead of the candidate's own website, and it is entirely conceivable that the general public would come to this site for NPOV biographical information on this person.--Francisx 20:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not asking for your opinion on what violates the "spirit" of WP:NPOV, I'm asking you to quote specifically what part of WP:NPOV supports your statement. Wikipedia is not a news outlet that is obligated to give "equal time" to two candidates. In any encyclopedia (not just Wikipedia), there is bound to be more articles about incumbents than challengers because obviously, incumbents are inherently notable and not all challengers are. wikipediatrix 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it, obviously in my view violates the prohibition in WP:NPOV of "political bias." I'm not asking for equal sized articles or equal time in an election article for less-competitive candidates. Nor am I suggesting that they will remain notable following an election. But I think failing to mention their existence is an expression of a POV. As for notability, I think Wikipedia is especially ill-suited for judging the political notability of candidates. In the United States, each state has a notability test of its own, namely ballot listing. Additionally, major parties have primaries or caucuses to determine notability. I will bring this up in Wiki C&E, but I think ballot listing by a major party in a federal election constitutes de facto notability, even if the candidate is not otherwise notable.--Francisx 20:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As the person who made the nomination, I'd like to point out that I'm a Democrat. DesertSky85451 22:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not questioning anybody's good faith here and even though I'm also a Democrat, I'd like to think I'd make the same objection were a Republican's bio on the line. I just think this is a bad road to go down, with WP members deciding by a vote a candidate's viability. WP:Bio as I read it has a significantly less strict bar for notability than the State of Florida has in determining who gets to sit on their ballot.--Francisx 22:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be clear, this isn't a bias for incumbents, it is a "bias" for people who are have been in office as opposed to people who have not. JoshuaZ 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that the same thing? Dwight Eisenhower might not have gotten his own wikipedia article in 1952, had Wikipedia existed then, since he never held elective office before running for President. Bias for people who have been elected is still bias, and it still inappropriately favors incumbents -- people who already benefit from enhanced name rec. In fact, I think WP articles on little-known challengers are especially deserved, precisely because they are little-known. WP doesn't exist to level the playing field, but it does exist to provide a valuable source of NPOV information that would not otherwise be available to readers.--Francisx 21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you even read Eisenhower's article?? He was notable BEFORE he ran for President. He was Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during WWII, and headed NATO in 1949. To say that "I think WP articles on little-known challengers are especially deserved, precisely because they are little-known" is completely contrary to Wikipedia policy. Nobody "deserves" an article for being little-known! wikipediatrix 11:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that the same thing? Dwight Eisenhower might not have gotten his own wikipedia article in 1952, had Wikipedia existed then, since he never held elective office before running for President. Bias for people who have been elected is still bias, and it still inappropriately favors incumbents -- people who already benefit from enhanced name rec. In fact, I think WP articles on little-known challengers are especially deserved, precisely because they are little-known. WP doesn't exist to level the playing field, but it does exist to provide a valuable source of NPOV information that would not otherwise be available to readers.--Francisx 21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As the person who made the nomination, I'd like to point out that I'm a Democrat. DesertSky85451 22:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it, obviously in my view violates the prohibition in WP:NPOV of "political bias." I'm not asking for equal sized articles or equal time in an election article for less-competitive candidates. Nor am I suggesting that they will remain notable following an election. But I think failing to mention their existence is an expression of a POV. As for notability, I think Wikipedia is especially ill-suited for judging the political notability of candidates. In the United States, each state has a notability test of its own, namely ballot listing. Additionally, major parties have primaries or caucuses to determine notability. I will bring this up in Wiki C&E, but I think ballot listing by a major party in a federal election constitutes de facto notability, even if the candidate is not otherwise notable.--Francisx 20:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not asking for your opinion on what violates the "spirit" of WP:NPOV, I'm asking you to quote specifically what part of WP:NPOV supports your statement. Wikipedia is not a news outlet that is obligated to give "equal time" to two candidates. In any encyclopedia (not just Wikipedia), there is bound to be more articles about incumbents than challengers because obviously, incumbents are inherently notable and not all challengers are. wikipediatrix 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it violates the spirit of WP:NPOV for Wikipedia to feature one major party candidate for election and not another. In this instance, it reflects a pro-incumbent POV by default. Moreover, deleting a candidate's bio less than a month before the election could have a measurable effect on the outcome. On a Google search for "John Russell Florida," the Wikipedia page comes up at the top, even ahead of the candidate's own website, and it is entirely conceivable that the general public would come to this site for NPOV biographical information on this person.--Francisx 20:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifically what part of WP:NPOV are you basing this position on? wikipediatrix 20:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. IMO, a major-party candidate in a major election (both of which are somewhat subjective, of course) is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --Russ (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Russ, and don't delete it even if Russell loses the general election. JamesMLane t c 08:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per Francisx. It's grossly POV to delete this article now. This is a newsworthy and noteworthy candidate from a major party running in a Congressional election.UncleFester 20:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Polispam. Only poll shows subject sixteen points behind the incumbent. [4] --Aaron 04:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge into Virginia Brown-Waite as appropriate. Maybe even an info box highlighting the current election but new articles for every candidate is a little much. There will probably be six or seven people on the ballot for this office. --Tbeatty 04:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A major-party candidate for Congress, especially one who won a contested primary, is more notable than the typical minor-party candidate. Generally, a minor-party candidacy for Congress would add just about nothing to a person's notability. JamesMLane t c 08:12, 16 October 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.