Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Melancon

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. Sango123 00:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Melancon

Non-notable Texas Democratic Party Congressional candidate. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete 167 unique google hits, Mostly campaign stuff. :) Dlohcierekim 02:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable candidate.--Peta 05:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 12:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC).
• Comment What we've done in Canada is merge all info on candidates like this into one catch-all article (for instance, Liberal Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election.) I know the candidate name recognition is a lot stronger in US elections than it is in Canada, but could a similar setup work? If not, I vote delete. Kirjtc2 15:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above reasons.UberCryxic 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Retain As stated in the disucssion with the article, deleting articles about non-incumbent candidates while leaving articles about incumbents is a violation of the neutral point of view policy. Deletion for notability is not a policy and should not be done when it violates the neutral point of view policy. F3meyer 16:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The incumbent is notable because he/she has held a notable office. The other candidates have not, and simply being a candidate for office doesn't make one notable. If he wins, then he will be notable enough for an article. -Elmer Clark 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete without regret. As stated many times over in AfD's...WP:NPOV does not extend to list every canidate in a political race. NPOV is about how articles are worded, not to have articles for all canidates. Back to my delete, IMH(onest)O, this canidate does show any notability and does not pass the rules for inclusion WP:BIO. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my reasoning in my comment above. -Elmer Clark 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Major party candidate. His opponent has an article, so by deleting this we are just reinforcing the pro-incumbent bias in US politics. Catchpole 10:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment which is not relevant to WP:BIO and not meeting it. One could counter argue that non-incumbents are seeking to overcome their name recognition disadvantage by using Wikipedia as free advertising. Once again, irrelevant to WP:BIO. :) Dlohcierekim 22:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The free advertising argument leads to logical absurdity: Any living person about whom there is an article in Wikipedia benefits from free advertising, be the article is positive neutral, or negative. This is true whether the person is in power because of election or coup d'etat, whether a politician, athlete, or scientist. To avoid such free advertising, Wikipedia could set a policy that no living person can be the subject of an article. Such a policy would of course reduce the utility of Wikipedia to its readers. Hence it is absurd. There is utility to Wikipedia's readers in having information about incumbent and challenger candidates in Wikipedia as long as these articles really have a neutral point of view. F3meyer 05:23, 16 September 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.