Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Stanley Katz 2

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 of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 10:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Stanley Katz 2

This guy narrowly escaped deletion before, though it confounds me how (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Stanley Katz). Here's a guy who got 24 votes in a primary election. I bet any person reading this could get that many votes in an election if they got a handful of signatures and were willing to spend pretty small amount of money. Seriously, if we're going to have an article on him, we should have an article on just about every person on the planet. I got about 50 unique googles when searching his name -wikipedia, and not all of them even appeared to be him. I don't see how this guy meets the criteria at WP:BIO. -R. fiend 21:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination or Smerge somewhere. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-15 03:15Z
• Keep. as was stated in the last AfD, Proposer has moved that Katz and other candidates in the June 14th primary be removed on the grounds they did not do well. Katz has an article to make a complete record of the election. It is inherently unfair to decide legitimate candidates for an important office do not merit articles because they did not do well in the campaign. Some people previously proposed for deletion have won local offices (e.g. Eric Minamyer) and if we delete them, then we'll have to prevent nearly all local officials from getting any attention at all. (apologies to pedantically speaking for copying his previous answer and altering it, but I couldnt put it better!) Jcuk 22:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • First of all, the notion that we can't delete Arthur Stanley Katz because Eric Minamyer has held another office is a non-sequitur, and downright ridiculous. Merely running for an office is not in itself notable. There is plenty of precedent for this. We don't have articles on every single person who ran for the governor of California last time, and that was a much more notable race. Nor, as you seem to indicate, do we delete people's articles just because they didn't do well in an election. Caleb Carr, I recall hearing, recently ran for a local office and did poorly; we do not now delete his article. We do delete people whose sole claim to fame is that they ran for an office and got a dozen votes (two dozen, in this case). This guy made a very sorry attempt to run for an office. Impact on the world: zero. In addition, we do not have articles on every local officeholder, nor should we ever try to. There are just too many of them, and most don't do anything significant to a large degree. There are thousands of villages, towns, municpalities, cities, etc in the world (54,000 Rambot articles gives you an idea of how many there are in the US alone). Pretty much each and every one of these has local officeholders, from a handful to 50 or more. With a turnover every several years, going back hundred of years in some cases (thousands, in some countries) we're dealing with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. Attempting to cover them all would be a futile attempt to double the size of wikipedia without any increase in quality. -R. fiend 00:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. 24 votes? Give me a break. Stifle 23:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Election-cruft/political vanity. A single US congressional election in which he lost the PRIMARY and only managed 24 write-in votes? This is not information, this is noise.--Calton | Talk 01:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Everything worth merging is in the election articles. NatusRoma 07:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep." I would quote myself, but it's been done before by Jcuk. PedanticallySpeaking 16:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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.