Talk:Bill Slavick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 November 2006. The result of the discussion was keep or possibly merge to Maine United States Senate election, 2006. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
Contents |
[edit] Merge This Page
I proposed this page be moved to the Maine US Senate election as it is generally agreed that his unsuccesful run for Senate as an independent is really his only wikipedia worthy claim to fame. Jules1236 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fleshing Out Detail
Added information on candidate, since Wikipedia has the other two politicians in the race. Any help would be appreciated. mitchsensei 21 June 2006
[edit] Removed prod
The template above is enough, as a warning for admins in cases where they may need to temporarily protect the article. In my opinion, prod is too much. I may reverse my opinion if futher evidence is supplied : ) -Jc37 13:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Prod?
As the Initial contributor of this article, I strongly disagree with removing this article. Bill Slavick is a legitimate, registered candidate. He has an active campaign.
He could well prove to be a spoiler, even though he is not necessarily in contention. By the same reasoning, Ralph Nader would not deserve an entry, which I believe he thoroughly does.
Perhaps, after the election, he might not merit quite as extensive entry, but since Wikipedia is a place people come for information on matters such as candidates, it deserves to stay
mitchsensei July 29, 2006
[edit] Spoiler?
The race isn't remotely close enough for Bill Slavick to be a spoiler. Olympia Snowe is expected to breeze to reelection, and most people have no idea who Bill Slacick is. (His website claims 4% of voters support him, and 10% support the Democrat in the race.)
Turning in a nomination form shouldn't be enough to deserve someone a wikipedia article. This article should be considered for deletion, or at the very least the vanity-article-sounding biographical information should be removed.
(Active in Sacred Heart/St. Dominic parish as Council members and leaders of the Haiti project. They have six living children and nine grandchildren. They reside in Portland.)
Also the Politics sections seems very POV. It makes it sound like someone else opposes "human dignity."
[edit] It Should be Here
Please sign your comments and register an account on Wikipedia if you want to participate in the debate.
I believe Bill Slavick deserves a listing on Wikipedia, at least for the duration of the election, which is why I started it here in the first place. He has a legitimate and active campaign, and seeing how Wikipedia is a place people come for information, and is high on search results, it is a worthy inclusion.
If there is something POV/Vanity about the article you don't like, fix it, in the spirit of Wikipedia. Suggesting the whole article should be deleted because of errors is spurious.
If Living Political Candidates of any ilk are going to be on here, so should Bill Slavick. mitchsensei Aug 27, 2006
[edit] Deleted Links
Two links were put on this site, one linking to an opinion piece and another linked to the opposing candidates viewpoints on Slavick. They were not sources or factual information, so I deleted them. mitchsensei Aug 27, 2006
I'm the one who put the links on. Both links substantiated information in the "Controversy" section. While the pages I linked to should not be viewed as neccecarily factually accurate, they confirm that there was a real controversy. jules1236
I do not think it apppropriate to include opinion piece based criticism as a source. If there is some more authoritative 'factual' source, by all means, it could be included.
Also, I do not think it valid to include criticism from an opposition candidate in a piece about an active candidate. If there was ever a less credible source of information than that, I have not discovered it. mitchsensei Aug 28, 2006
[edit] Minimizing this Entry
I created this entry, and now I believe it should be minimized. With the end of the election. Slavick is not a person that should have a large bio here on Wikipedia. I am leaving the stub to show his limited significance to larger events.
mitchsensei Nov 19, 2006
Look, I am the guy who put Slavick on here in the first place, because of his relevance to the election. If he decides to do something incredibly worthy, or runs for major office again, perhaps then he merits a full bio here, but he just doesn't merit it otherwise. Participate in the discussion. I believe giving him a full bio here amounts to bias, by the 5% who may have voted for him.--Mitchsensei 23:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Can you find justification in Wikipedia policy for keeping an article in stubbed condition indefinitely? Now that the article was kept, we should try to make it good and informative. JChap2007 04:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of stub tags
If the current two sentences are all that can be said about the subject of this article, then he seems unlikely to be worth a separate article at all. If there's reason to believe that he's notable for matters beyond that, the stub tags should remain (which is not to be construed as an invitation to add anything and everything, especially not material it's been previously decided not to include). Alai 03:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I Refer you to the top of this Talk Page. This page was already voted for, and the decision was to keep the page. The vote was conducted while this page was in its current form. Relax, you don't even know the guy, but he is a mildly irrelevant third party candidate who ran against the most popular U.S. Senator. I think the world of information and wikipedia will not suffer if this is all that is said about Bill Slavick. --Mitchsensei 06:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't find that especially helpful or responsive. Pending actual deletion of the article, I'm restoring the stub tags; please don't re-remove them without some more convincing argument for doing so. Alai 07:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Alai, The article is not being deleted, it was already voted on, and a decision was made to KEEP it. This was AFTER it had already been reduced to its current size. The article was much more extensive before, when Mr. Slavick was actively running for the US Senate. Now that the race is over, he is a footnote in history. A minutely significant footnote, and his entry notes the worthiness of the man in regards to larger events. IT IS NOT A STUB!!! It is a complete article, asking people to help expand it is pointless, since it already was expanded, and contracted, and voted upon, and kept.
The man would not even be on Wikipedia if I did not take it upon myself to create an article in the interest of fairly representing an independent candidate in an election when the two other major candidates running for the office were already represented.
My argument is extremely convincing, and was noted in the discussion to KEEP this article in the first place. Just because you are a SYSOP does not make it less so. That you did not find my response useful is apparently a personal flaw in your ability to judge these matters. --Mitchsensei 03:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Alai, I further note your obsession with 'stub' articles. Move on. This entry is not one of them. I am sure there are more relevant issues for you to expend energy on. --Mitchsensei 03:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please adopt a more civil tone, and make at least some show of assuming good faith. You seem to be inferring something quite different from the AFD outcome than what it actually implies: it most certainly does not involve "adjudication" of the stub status of an article, endorsement of a particular version, or preclusion of the possibility of expansion. It means "not to be deleted", and that's all. (It doesn't even mean not to be merged, which would be the obvious thing to do if this were really all there were to say about him.) To describe a two-sentence article with no claim of notability, no references, and basically no content to speak of as "a complete article" doesn't make any sense at all. Your opinion as to your own convincingness is noted, but is itself not in the least convincing. Alai 07:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- I reverted to article to an earlier, non-stub version. I was the editor who nominated it for deletion, but now that it has been kept, I want it to be a good article. I asked Mitchsensei above to justify in WP policy his view that an article should be kept indefinitely at two sentences in length; however, he has not done so. To call the discussion at AfD an endorsement of keeping an article in a particular state (as opposed to a decision that the subject should be covered in its own article on WP) is just wrong and fundamentally contrary to how a wiki works. JChap2007 18:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I have decided not to care. I have spent entirely too much of my life energy on Bill Slavick. My motivations for including him for the election were the right thing to do (I didn't even vote for him), but if you all seem to want him to somehow rise to a person of relevance beyond what his life's accomplishments merit, by all means go ahead. There are certainly enough absolutely ridiculous articles on here, that if the powers that be want to devote space to Bill, so be it. I will no longer watch this article, or edit it. --Mitchsensei 22:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
