Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Murray (politician) (3rd nomination)
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 redirect to Virginia's 8th congressional district election, 2010. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Murray (politician)[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Patrick Murray (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He was never notable; he should never have had an article; he lost his election; this article should finally be removed, as it should have been back when he was a candidate trying to publicize himself. Orange Mike | Talk 05:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Virginia's 8th congressional district election, 2010, any relevant content can be merged there afterwards, if it is found to be necessary. --NickPenguin(contribs) 06:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear Keep The sources provide sufficient information to write a reasonable biography, and we follow the sources. If there was this much coverage about a milkman delivering milk, he would be notable based upon sourcing alone. The bias against losing politicians is turning WP into an incumbent's paradise. Per WP:GNG, if we have the sources, we should have the article. Anything else is an attempt to insert a value judgment into the inclusion criteria which is outside of policy and principle, or an attempt to bury significant coverage of an individual as "routine" because we have regularly scheduled elections in a democracy. Are we to have another AfD every 90 days until those who seek deletion get the result they want? Jim Miller See me | Touch me 15:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- response - Jim, you've made it clear in the past that you feel WP:POLITICIAN should be changed, to make all major-party candidates in the United States (Center of the Universe™) inherently notable; but that isn't the case right now. The coverage provided has not been about Patrick Murray in his own right, it has been about the candidate in that election, regardless of whether he would otherwise be notable. He's just another non-notable former military officer and failed candidate; had he not run for office, nobody would ever have heard of him. As the Penguin says, anything useful could go in the election article. As a failed major-party candidate against an incumbent, and one who got some amusing coverage when he ran, I can see the loser's point of view; but right now, our rules are clear. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to make anyone inherently notable. The decision should always be based one the same question - Do we have sufficient reliable sources to write a reasonably complete article? I only seek to maintain that subject specific guidelines cannot be more strict than the GNG, and that the definition of notable that we use is consistently applied across all subjects. I think that there are SNGs that are much too loose in defining people who can be assumed to have adequate coverage, and I think POLITICIAN is often used to exclude people for whom we have more than enough coverage to write a reasonably complete biography. I don't care if they are the most insignificant person on the planet, or the most important. How important a person is perceived to be should not be a factor in determining whether the article exists. It should strictly be based on the availablility of sources, and whether the sources have determined the individual to be "worthy of notice." Why they received that coverage should never be part of the decision. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 17:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- response - On the contrary, that's at the very core of the issue, per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. If the coverage is really about the event, not the person, then they are not thereby made notable in and of themselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to make anyone inherently notable. The decision should always be based one the same question - Do we have sufficient reliable sources to write a reasonably complete article? I only seek to maintain that subject specific guidelines cannot be more strict than the GNG, and that the definition of notable that we use is consistently applied across all subjects. I think that there are SNGs that are much too loose in defining people who can be assumed to have adequate coverage, and I think POLITICIAN is often used to exclude people for whom we have more than enough coverage to write a reasonably complete biography. I don't care if they are the most insignificant person on the planet, or the most important. How important a person is perceived to be should not be a factor in determining whether the article exists. It should strictly be based on the availablility of sources, and whether the sources have determined the individual to be "worthy of notice." Why they received that coverage should never be part of the decision. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 17:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- response - Jim, you've made it clear in the past that you feel WP:POLITICIAN should be changed, to make all major-party candidates in the United States (Center of the Universe™) inherently notable; but that isn't the case right now. The coverage provided has not been about Patrick Murray in his own right, it has been about the candidate in that election, regardless of whether he would otherwise be notable. He's just another non-notable former military officer and failed candidate; had he not run for office, nobody would ever have heard of him. As the Penguin says, anything useful could go in the election article. As a failed major-party candidate against an incumbent, and one who got some amusing coverage when he ran, I can see the loser's point of view; but right now, our rules are clear. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge/Redirect to the Virginia's 8th congressional district election, 2010 article. The only source that talks about the subject outside of the election that I can find is the candidate's own website, which is not useable for establishing notability. Therefore, as a consequence of WP:BLP1E, the biographical article should be merged with the singular event to which it is connected. Sailsbystars 13:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There's another source from a non-local newspaper talking about him running in 2012. But thinking about running for something obviously isn't a point for notability. Actually running twice and getting coverage would make BLP1E not apply.-LtNOWIS (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- query - how so? The coverage would be about the 2010 race and the 2012 race, respectively, still not about Murray in his own right. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By definition, two notable elections would be two notable events, not one event. The merge/redirect option doesn't work if the guy's involved in two equally notable elections. He wouldn't necessarily be notable, but he would necessarily be more notable. But, this is pretty speculative and not really relevant right now. -LtNOWIS (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a fair point, and is how we get articles on a perennial candidate. BLP1e is only applicable to the extent that so far the candidate has only been involved in a single election. So while it is applicable now, it may not remain so if he runs again, even if he loses again. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By definition, two notable elections would be two notable events, not one event. The merge/redirect option doesn't work if the guy's involved in two equally notable elections. He wouldn't necessarily be notable, but he would necessarily be more notable. But, this is pretty speculative and not really relevant right now. -LtNOWIS (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- query - how so? The coverage would be about the 2010 race and the 2012 race, respectively, still not about Murray in his own right. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Virginia's 8th congressional district election, 2010. The sources don't meet the GNG in my view. It's limited campaign coverage. Typical of campaign coverage, the indepedent sources tell us a lot about what he says but little about who he is. Clearly fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN and the WP:BLP1E argument is well made. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 8 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.