Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Van Auken

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 no consensus. PeterSymonds (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Van Auken

Bill Van Auken (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Self-sourced article on a political no-hoper. His total tally of votes in the 2004 US Presidential election was, by an amazing coincidence, the same as the tally for the winning candidate in my local ward of the Reading local council election this week[1], noting in passing that local council elections in Britain have a turnout of around 1/3 of those eligible to vote. Politics can have notable losers, Bill Boaks is the example usually cited in the UK, but I do not see any evidence that this guy is one of them. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The subject appeared on five state ballots as a nominee for President of the United States. There were only 17 presidential candidates who made it to the general election ballot in any state that year, and I tend to think that anyone who makes it through ballot access to the general presidential election is notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete he received less than 2,000 votes. No way notability is satisfied. Eusebeus (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• 1,857 people voted for him, why do you want to delete this page?

PS: He had a party: Socialist Equality Party Presidential, with a Preceded by. see http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ny/state/vote/vanauken_w/ Telecine Guy 09:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Preceding comment copied from Talk:Bill Van Auken. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 07:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• There is an answer to the above, which is that the 1,857 represents 0.0015% of the popular vote, and there are no non-trivial independent biographical sources about the guy. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Socialist Equality Party (United States). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - there may be a couple reliable sources ([2][3]) and I could probably dig up a copy of the Van Aken-Van Auken Newsletter that mentions him, but in the end, he doesn't seem to have done anything to establish notability. Being a presidential candidate does not itself establish notability.--Michael White^T·C 22:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - U.S. presidential candidates who appear on state ballots are per se notable. He is listed in several places in Wikipedia with the nominees and vote totals in 2004. Moreover, his party has had ballot status and run numerous candidates around the country. Small left wing sectarian parties don't get many votes, but they are each an important part of the history of U.S. radicalism, which is of interest far beyond the small number of "true believers". Mainstream political historians and researchers will find his page useful. Kestenbaum (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: 26900 ghits. Four news.google.com hits that are not from his party's website and 9 that are. Fourteen Google Scholar hits that are not from his party's website, and 1 that is. Sixteen hits from Montgomery County, Md. library databases, of which some appear to be duplicates and others irrelevant. However, the 3 duplicative library database hits are all from the World Almanac and Book of Facts, which verifies that he indeed was a U.S. presidential candidate. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Meanwhile the article remains stubbornly unsourced... Guy (Help!) 11:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Three of those news sources are written by Van Auken himself, however. I think this is the ultimate "non-independent source" =) Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

• Delete, unsuccessful candidate for political office. A few trivial mentions that may be expected from such a candidature, but in the end I'm not convinced that he's any more notable than anyone else who gets their name on a ballot paper only to go nowhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

Comment. Running for US president is not like running for dogcatcher. Given ballot access requirements, getting a presidential and vice-presidential candidate on the ballot in more than one state is a pretty substantial task. In this case, the candidate was nominated by a national party which got him on the ballot (or at least received votes) in seven states. Kestenbaum (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - being on the ballot for US President does not convey notability and he secured a derisory number of votes. Though there are many Ghits, it is the quality that counts and substantial coverage of the subject has not been identified. Fails WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 18:26, 17 May 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.