Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Loyd

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 Delete --Haemo (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Annie Loyd

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Annie Loyd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Yet another non-notable political candidate. Compare to current AfD debates on Peter Myers and Noah Iemas. Prod removed by IP addy. Wikipedia is not the place for political campaigning. IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to the closing admin: I suspect that some or all of the following participators in this discussion may be sock puppets (possibly good faith socks, since they're all new users who may be unaware of policy). I've taken it up on all of their talk pages, but in case no response is forthcoming I list them here so that you can make your own evaluation before closing:
Follow-up: Ccb2115 and Cbenton2679 are admitted socks (again, presumably good-faith ones) but deny that the others are the same. Jbogs3 denies that any of the other users are the same. I've asked about off-site canvassing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - I already had this article speedily deleted in May 2007. I noticed it showed up in my watch list again. The author should come back and try again if Annie Loyd actually gets elected. Otherwise, this article is a transparent attempt at promotion. =Axlq 02:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I must say, there sure are a lot of single purpose accounts that came out of the woodwork to post emotional arguments here. Just see below. =Axlq 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Readers might want to skip to my suggestion below. :D John J. Bulten (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete In the beginning of February, I attended an event called “An Independent Night” at Columbia University. It was there where I met Annie Loyd who is currently running for congress in Arizona. One thing about Annie Loyd that separates her from many other politicians is that she represents a party that many remain unaware about. As a resident of New York and a political science major at Columbia University, I was embarrassed that I didn’t know that much about the Independent Party. It took someone all the way from Arizona who cared enough to reach out to us. This is not a campaigning article. This is an article to inform others that the two heavy weight parties of our corrupt political system are not the only way out. There are other options. That being said, not only is this article very relevant and helpful in many ways, but I would discontinue using Wikipedia because it would be doing a disservice to everyone by withholding useful information.--Ccb2115 (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC) — Ccb2115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • None of the previous paragraph is relevant to the discussion here. Your feelings about Annie Loyd or political corruption or your use of Wikipedia aren't at issue. =Axlq 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Also if Congresspedia, the Arizona Republic and FEC recognize her why can't wikipedia? Honest people with questions about her can use Wikipedia to link to valuable voter resources through this article. Please clarify what a notable candidate is as this is subjective. Notable to you? perhaps not . . . to someone in Arizona. Yes. Does the impact stretch beyond the border to an Ivy League institution. Yes. Simply claiming her to be non-notable because you don't know her is a poor argument for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbogs3 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC) — Jbogs3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Poor argument. Anyone can run for an office. That doesn't make you notable. Heck, in the last gubernatorial election in California, over 100 candidates came out of the woodwork to run for governor, and most of them had nothing notable about them except that they were candidates. That isn't sufficient to warrant an article. =Axlq 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete The Speedy Delete by Axlq as of May 2007 was for the e-zine "one planet." This is a different article about her running for Congress. If you think that the article is full of bias promotion of her as a candidate please research her and edit the page first before you delete it or at least understand what article you are deleting. This is a recognized congressional candidate, not some lady from north phoenix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.105.154 (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC) — 72.223.105.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Wrong. The speedy delete was about Annie Loyd, not the e-zine. She was a non-notable publisher of a non-notable e-zine, and now that she happens to be running for office, that makes her notable all of a sudden? We have higher standards for biography articles on Wikipedia. =Axlq 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi. A few things. I think you're not understanding the purpose of Wikipedia or its guidelines for biographical articles. Biographical articles must meet notability guidelines for biographies. Please read that page. Read it twice. It's not about opinion, and it's not subjective. Simply running for office does not make a person notable. It just doesn't. Wikipedia is not a voter's pamphlet, and it is not a means of distributing "valuable voter resources". This may be disappointing for supporters of political candidates who don't meet the criteria, but Wikipedia isn't the place for politics. It does not allow essays on the corruption of American politics. You can't have a Wikipedia page to use as your own personal webspace just because you are running for an office somewhere. Take a look at the two politician bios I listed at the top of the page. They didn't meet the criteria either. Cheers, IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete A woman who is half cherokee, gay and running for office is notable it is of interest as the notability guidelines for biographies asks. Besides it is exceedingly more interesting then your project on the fauna of california. Hey?! guess what? That's already in an encyclopedia. This isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.105.154 (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC) — 72.223.105.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Easy there, friend. No need to get personal. If you're not going to read and comprehend the notability guidelines I don't know what else to tell you. If your candidate gets elected she might make it but until then your time would be better spent describing plant species... which are notable. Cheers, IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete I disagree completely - what makes notability? Annie Loyd is very well known in the Phoenix area. She is highly regarded, and she's not "yet another non-notable candidate." We in the Native American community are watching her candidacy with great interest. especially as we have another Native American candidate running in Arizona's Congressional District 1. Loyd is also running against John Shadegg, the incumbent Republican who like his soon to be former colleague Rick Renzi - has what could be termed "questionable ethics." Access to interesting people, finding them on Wikipedia is what makes Wikipedia so valuable. If I wanted to look up people who can be found in Who's Who, or any of the online biographical websites, I would. But Wikipedia is vibrant, and cutting edge. And because you don't know who she is, or you are ill informed, or you simply feel that a little power is worth wielding -- that's no reason for deleting this entry. And as regard the notability guidelines: Annie is notable in that she is an activist. She is certainly one of the most well known activists in Phoenix, and there are few in any camp, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Gay and Hispanic who don't know Annie Loyd. She is a commanding presence. Your guideline says: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone --- and Annie certainly qualifies. Or do you have a bias against Native American, gay women? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janziff (talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It doesn't help your argument to attack the motivations of those who want to delete. The article must stand on its own merits. And right now, it doesn't have any merits that warrant its keeping. =Axlq 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete I totally agree with the last post. An article is “notable” if it is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." This is exactly who Annie Loyd is. If you take away the diversity of knowledge from Wikipedia, Wikipedia will be looking at many more problems down the road. Just because four or five people have nothing else to do but look for articles that they deem “insignificant”, doesn’t mean it should be removed. Even if only one or two people voice to keep the page up, that should be enough. This is not a majority rule. The article stays.Also, Wikipedia has many articles that they should deem insignificant before looking at Annie Loyd. Porn stars are not notable figures. But what will happen if you take away those articles? People who find them interesting will riot. The same thing will happen if you remove this page. Even if you stop one person from posting this page, there are thousands more who find this article interesting enough and will just post it on their own. So if you want to fight a losing battle, go ahead.--24.188.95.178 (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC) — 24.188.95.178 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • This isn't a vote. This is a discussion. The decision to delete is based on the merits of the arguments, not whether "one or two people voice to keep the page up." As to your claim of "thousands" who will post it on their own, and your threat of a losing battle, see WP:POINT. =Axlq 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Jon Lasech, Will Sahfroth, Betsy Markey, Roy Carter, Amy Sue Mertens, Peter Gutzmer, Robert G. Abboud, Jonathan Bedi, and Cindy Purvis are all candidates running for Congress. (Their links are listed below respectively.) Why have their articles not been flagged for deletion? If this bio page has to go, then the other 9 must go as well. I am sure there are more as well. One would have to find them all first, not just single out one or two. There are info box templates for Congressional Candidates, so obviously articles about them are allowed. If there is something offensive or “wrong” with an area of the biography, edit that section, and the creators will work around it. Deleting the entire article just does not make any sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Laesch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Shafroth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_Markey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Carter_%28North_Carolina%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmySue_Mertens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gutzmer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Abboud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Bedi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Purvis --Cbenton2679 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC) — Cbenton2679 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    • So? If those articles don't establish notability for their subjects, propose them for deletion also. Here, we are talking about the Annie Loyd article, and no others, evaluating the article on its own merits. =Axlq 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete You are making a point above that the article, based on others deleted, should also be deleted. Now when we demonstrate significant articles that are less credible you claim this to be an invalid argument. This article is worthy of being on Wikipedia. Your personal attempt to delete a page that came up before or whatever bias you might face in light of an extensive effort to show the notability of this woman aside, if you are going to delete this page, YOU need to delete the others. The sources are verifiable, the content interesting, and transpartisan politics itself is an article on wikipedia . . . stick to your argument. Stop picking on this page because you don't like it from before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LAMAJB (talk • contribs) 2008-03-19 — LAMAJB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do Not Delete if Axlq wants to delete this page he should totally do the others like the comment said . . . plus who cares if this is majority vote? these are people saying that this is a noteworthy article. it should be kept because it has met all the other reasons why it should be deleted. nobody that has proposed deleting it has tried editing it or giving suggestions. follow your own rules and edit before deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LAMAJB (talk • contribs) 2008-03-19 — LAMAJB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    • Oh, look, another single purpose account and possibly sockpuppet of the other "do not delete" contributors here. You totally miss the point above, read it again. If articles are less credible, propose them for deletion too. Your arguments about my motivations are irrelevant. What are the merits of the article that meet the conditions of Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BLP that warrant keeping this article? You want suggestions? Find some sources that establish notability, beyond saying "this is a candidate, she's gay, she's Native American" etc. =Axlq 00:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The user Axlq is known for doing this and has been accused of violations himself. Because of this, I do not think he has any authority to even participate in this discussion. Because he is involved in clearing "nonsense" from wikipedia, i'm sure he has other problems to be focussing on. Like Wikipedia says, "Do not bite the newcomers." He is an experienced user and should offer advice, rather than just try to get it deleted. Because he cannot do this, he no longer needs to participate in this discussion --Cbenton2679 (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
        • What violations? You can't establish sufficient merits to keep the article, so now you resort to personal attacks? See the policy WP:NPA. Point taken about biting newcomers; in this case so many single-purpose accounts appeared with such similar arguments that they seemed to be from the same person, and I lost my patience with these seemingly obvious sockpuppets/meatpuppets. I have offered advice - see my comment immediately above. I have ample authority to participate here, but you're right, I don't need to. I will continue doing so as long as people post non-sequitur responses that don't address the issue at hand. I'll note that nobody has so far offered an argument to keep this article that is grounded in Wikipedia policy, and we already have Wikipedia policies about notability and biographies that indicate the article should be deleted. =Axlq 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems like this article will be deleted, but it seems more for personal reasons which is just cruel. Shame on you guys.--32.137.194.218 (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC) — 32.137.194.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Of the oppose reasons given ("no sources to support notability", "no evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources", "a transparent attempt at promotion", etc.) which strike you as personal? Not only do I not know Annie Loyd (which I would think would be a requirement to have a personal grudge against her), I'm actually very inclusionist when it comes to articles on politicians. Quite often I find myself arguing keep on articles that are deleted anyway. That I'm in the delete camp on this one is, I think, telling. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you have. Why is so much time being spent on this and not the others? Just seems weird, especially given Annie's diverse background. You dont need to explain yourself. Just seems a little off.--32.142.156.196 (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • So much time is being spent on this one because of an eruption of single purpose accounts opposing deletion without any grounding in Wikipedia policy. Generally speaking, articles like this one are deleted without opposition, which is why so little time is spent on them. You also haven't explained your "for personal reasons" remark. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow me to explain. If this article is against Wikipedias policy, then it just weird as to why you have not offered any of the other candidates up for deletion. Some of their pages have been up for quite some time, almost as if its not that big of a deal. So, it just seems weird that so much time is being spent on this one article when it is true that you devote your lives to search for articles like this. It just seems weird. But as I said earlier, do what you need to do. Cheers--32.138.60.97 (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I can explain that (and note that I'm not the one who nominated this article for deletion). In general, editors only nominate articles for deletion if they stumble across them and consider them somehow unencyclopaedic, or if they see them on new article patrol (very few editors actually "devote theirr lives to search for articles like this"). For that reason, plenty of articles that probably don't belong in Wikipedia survive here for extended periods of time. In that regard, the Annie Loyd article was indeed "unlucky", but that really isn't evidence of any kind of personal vendetta. As for the "so much time" bit, nominating an article for deletion is pretty quick. I monitor AfD for discussions about politicians (mostly to make sure there aren't any appropriate articles being deleted, but when I see one that should be deleted I'll chime in with a delete vote) which is also pretty quick. As I said earlier, things only become time-consuming when you've got a wave of opposition. Still waiting for either an explanation or a retraction of the "for personal reasons" remark. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do what you need to do. I will not retract my statment. You know what you are. There is no need for an explanation. You are an admin, so there is no use discussing anything with you. It would be fighting a losing battle. --32.138.232.138 (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • can i ask what makes you want to delete this article so badly? why this one? is it really going to effect anything? Are you going lay awake tonight thinking,"Damn that Annie Loyd article! It has plagued the good name of Wikipedia!" Relax bro. Find someone else to annoy! There are so many worse articles out there talking about so many "non-noteworthy" things. Let the audience be heard and let the article stand! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LAMAJB (talk • contribs) 03:40, 20 March 2008
  • Merge and redirect straightforwardly into a new section: Arizona's 3rd congressional district#2008. Trim to two paragraphs, or less if the hinted reliable sources don't materialize, and add two paragraphs from John Shadegg (and anything else useful). Then the community can sort it out there. Use my work at TX-14 for ideas. This neatly resolves both sides, the "don't delete" and the four very weak deletion arguments ("misspells" is not up to Sarcastic's usual debate standards). I think y'all can vouch for my standing as a defender of underdogs and jump aboard a merge proposal; of course the Loydites still need to learn a lot about WP but we need not WP:BITE. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC) If notability fails at the AZ-3 article, the coverage can calmly dwindle to zero, just as it did for andymann2008.com, who used to be in the Ron Paul article until his campaign failed to materialize. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure the "misspells" part was a joke, but I'm not really sure what was supposed to be funny about it. Sometimes my humour is so inaccessible that not even I get it. Regardless, thanks for the compliment re: "usual debating standards". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am a little confused. This debate has gone on for more than a few days now and no conclusion has been reached. We want to continue to work on the page and we cannot do this if it will be deleted, and we cannot work on the merge if it is not approved. When will a decision be made? --Cbenton2679 (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ignoring the non-arguments from the single-purpose accounts that sprung up just to post here, the conclusion seems to lean toward delete, but I would be in favor of merging the material into another article that's actually about a more notable subject. Arizona's 3rd congressional district#2008 would be a reasonable choice for Annie Loyd as well as for all those other articles about non-notable people who happen to be candidates. Therefore, if there is no objection for another couple days, I recommend this debate be closed and the article not deleted but merged into Arizona's 3rd congressional district. =Axlq 14:46, 26 March 2008 (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.