Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James L. Hart

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 Keep, overwhelmingly. —Centrx→talk • 08:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James L. Hart

Failed congressional candidate from 2004, no longer rates an article. He did not make it onto the ballot this year. Delete KleenupKrew 11:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This person, though a failed politician, is broady notable for his widely-reported opinions. His success in achieving the party nomination was national news. Hart is chiefly significant as a rare modern, and unabashed, proponent of the otherwise discredited practice of eugenics, [1]. That important connection raises his notability beyond most failed candidates. The details of his campaigns are broadly verifiable and notable. -Will Beback 11:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment, is Hart even notable as a eugenics proponent? From all appearances he is just a lone crank who ran for Congress in 2004 and lost. Does he have articles on eugenics published somewhere other than his campaign website, or does he get quoted in eugenicist literature, for example? I don't see that he's notable in any way, not even among eugenics proponents, and we have a lot of current AFDs on other failed congressional candidates who are far more notable (as local civic leaders and so on) that look like they are getting an overwhelming consensus to delete. In general I don't agree with the philosophy that "X gets an article because he has really fringy views" while "Y doesn't rate an article because he's just a mainstream civic leader" philosophy. It should be the other way around. KleenupKrew 12:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as a major party nominee (whether the GOP liked it or not) for the US House of Reps (a national legislature) and having gained national exposure for his, um, "unique" views. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 13:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Historically relevant to anyone researching the race he was running in, or researching the candidate who won the race. -- Mikeblas 13:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if expanded. More notable than many of the other candidates who have pages in AfD. --DarkAudit 18:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This guy got some serious press and serves as a useful exemplar of the current state of thought on eugenics in this country. Definitely deserves a place in Wikipedia, as it adheres to WP:V and WP:BIO. Captainktainer * Talk 21:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I tend to feel that failed candidates should not be in the encyclopedia, unless their campaign was of particular interest (i.e. marred with scandal, causing true division in the constituency, frequently nationally-covered, etc). In this case, with his very public "my race is better than your race" beliefs, I think he has caused a certain amount of eyebrow raising among many people. So, he deserves at least a footnote. --NMChico24 23:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per above, candidates are not notable by dint of running for office alone, but this guy is a little more notable for his public profession of his beliefs. SM247^{My Talk} 01:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per NMChico24. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:06, 2 July 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.