Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Swanson

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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 17:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Swanson

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Much as I would vote for you over Harper, I can't allow vanity. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• It could be vanity, but then again, adding references would solidify the article. I leave it up to our Canadian editors as to whether he's notable or not. Abstaining for now. B.Wind 05:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- We have to keep this one. Efforts to delete other candidates (even ones that had yet to secure a party nomination, such as [[1]]) have not always succeeded, and I don't think it's fair to delete some candidates, but keep others. Skeezix1000 12:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We keep some candidates because they satisfy the WP:BIO criteria on other grounds. Being merely a candidate for elected office is not one of the inclusion criteria. Uncle G 03:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That might be the theory, but it's not the practice. We should keep them all, rather than haphazardly deleting a random few. Skeezix1000 13:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It is the practice, by and large, too. Don't draw inferences from just one case where this hasn't been so. Uncle G 16:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
      • If it is the practice, then it's not being implemented very well. I just spent three minutes pulling articles on candidates in central Toronto, where I live, and I've already located a number that likely don't satisfy the WP:BIO criteria ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), unless having a job, belonging to the Lions Club, etc. qualify a notable. I'm just saying that balance and NPOV require that we either eliminate all articles that do not meet WP:BIO, or we let all candidate articles stand. If the former, then are you suggesting that we nominate potentially hundreds of articles for afd? And wouldn't fairness require that we do so fairly early in the election? Skeezix1000 17:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Keeping the articles on subjects that satisfy the WP:BIO criteria and not the ones on subjects that do not is exactly what many editors aim for. That the articles that you point to have never been put forward for consideration does not invalidate that. To see how ill-founded such a line of reasoning is, consider that we could equally argue that we should keep all articles on 13-year-old schoolchildren that fail to satisfy the WP:BIO criteria, simply because some of the articles about such children have never been nominated for deletion, and "it wouldn't be fair to delete some and not the others". Clearly, the argument is flawed.

          Finally: "Potentially hundreds" is not the same as "hundreds". Uncle G 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

          • There's a big difference between 13 year old school children and candidates in the upcoming federal election, as only one pertains to a significant political process in Canada. Haphazardly and selectively deleting articles on certain candidates gives rise to accusations of political favouritism by Wikipedia in a way that deleting or not deleting articles on schoolchildren does not.

            As for the reference to "potentially hundreds", the election just started, and is not expected to pick up steam (so to speak) until after the holidays. Over the next few weeks, many candidates (or more likely, their supporters) will undoubtedly create additional articles on Wikipedia that will not meet WP:BIO, in addition to all those that already candidate articles that already exist. There are more than 300 ridings, at least 5 political parties contesting every riding, with numerous independent and minor party candidates. You do the math.

            Finally: I am tired of the lectures of how "ill-founded" and "flawed" my opinion is, so I am changing my vote to delete. I will, as suggested, nominate other articles for afd in an attempt to maintain some neutrality during the election. Skeezix1000 22:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

            • On the contrary: It is disregarding the WP:BIO criteria that is haphazard, not the converse.

              Secondly: Wikipedia has been been around through several major elections. (I was one of the many editors that participated in the projects to cover some of them.) Your dire predictions don't match past experience.

              Finally: As any New Pages patroller who has patrolled for a significant length of time will attest, if candidates and their supporters will be creating articles on Wikipedia about themselves telling the world how great they are and about all of their hopes, aspirations, and minor achievements, they are functionally indistinguishable from the 13-year-old schoolchildren that do exactly that too. Uncle G 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, cleanup, NPOVize, and check for copyvio. Stifle 14:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep major party candidate. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep of course. -- JJay 02:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• The article states that this person is a candidate, and has never actually won an election. People who have never actually won an election have to satisfy the WP:BIO criteria on other grounds, such as being the subject of significant press coverage. (That is why they are kept.) This article tells us lots about Mr Swanson's hopes and aspirations, if he is elected, but nothing to indicate that he currently satisfies any of the WP:BIO criteria. Delete. Uncle G 03:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Uncle G
• Delete. Copyright violation of his campaign biography see [7] Unfortunately, it has been here more than two days but allowing political candidates or their supporters to post campaign blurbs as encyclopedia articles is a clear breach of NPOV. Capitalistroadster 06:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: also it is not from a commercial copyright provider, which makes money from the content that has been copied. -- Kjkolb 02:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Since it appears now to be a copyvio I would have to say delete. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 06:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• If copyvio then Delete (speedy ?) --Simon Cursitor 08:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 12:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no no on the copyvio or else I might have said keep.Gator (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 02:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as functionally unverifiable after the election has finished. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:27, 14 December 2005 (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.