Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Vanderpool
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 delete. Jujutacular talk 01:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Vanderpool[edit]
- Matthew Vanderpool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He won the primary for a state house seat...but the election is three months away. No notability quite yet, I think. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 03:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. Truthsort (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing more than a vehicle for the "Matthew Vanderpool for Kentucky House of Representatives" website. I'm afraid that there's been a spoiled brat mentality that every candidate for public office is entitled to an article on Wikipedia, or that every person who has ever served in a state or provincial legislature is "guaranteed" an article (Illinois is one of the worst offenders in this regard), which is ridiculous. I have no idea who Vanderpool is running against, doesn't matter whether that guy is or has been in the General Assembly, he or she is one of thousands of obscure public servants worldwide. The only free pass goes to members of a national legislature, Congress, Parliament, House of Deputies. Mandsford 14:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mandsford, that's not correct. WP:POLITICIAN says: "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" so if he is elected to the state house seat he'll be eligible then, for now though it has to be a delete especially given that it's a promo article. Valenciano (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Valenciano, I stand corrected. I couldn't recall that WP:POLITICIAN has automatically included state reps, but that may have been wishful thinking on my part rather than a recent change. However, that's the current policy, and I can see the reasoning in favor of it. That said, as others have pointed out, the policy in favor of allowing articles for people who have held the office doesn't extend to those who are seeking it. Is it an advantage in favor of the incumbent? I doubt it. An incumbent has no ownership of his or her article, nor the right to push a platform within that article. Mandsford 00:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the way the policy has been for quite a while; state legislators were included at least four years ago, before I joined Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Valenciano, I stand corrected. I couldn't recall that WP:POLITICIAN has automatically included state reps, but that may have been wishful thinking on my part rather than a recent change. However, that's the current policy, and I can see the reasoning in favor of it. That said, as others have pointed out, the policy in favor of allowing articles for people who have held the office doesn't extend to those who are seeking it. Is it an advantage in favor of the incumbent? I doubt it. An incumbent has no ownership of his or her article, nor the right to push a platform within that article. Mandsford 00:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an article being used to promote a political campaign, which is a violation of policy, requiring that articles are not to be used as a means of promotion. Cindamuse (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There needs to be a wiki site for every politician for public office. That would clear up the situation here. I will always contend that Wikipedia providing a neutral venue for major candidates is one of its greatest public goods, but that seems to be a minority view and the line for inclusion still remains to be drawn somewhere... Some internet genius needs to get Wikitics off the ground... Carrite (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Valenciano. When he gets elected, we can re-create the article. Until then, we are not a webhost. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see a direct delete since there is neutral information in the article. However, it has a source that are not all reliable (blog). Leaning towards delete. Yankeefan233 (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence of notability. We can always undelete if he wins the election. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per EVERYONE. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:40, 9 August 2010 (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.