Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Werner

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Werner

Yet another politician mistaking Wikipedia for a free promotional vehicle. Third-Party candidate for Texas governor; otherwise, completely unnotable (unlike, say, Kinky Friedman, who did a few things before running). Calton | Talk 02:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is meant to provide information and there was no intent to use Wikipedia as a "promotional vehicle". The information included in the Wikipedia article is similar to the information found on other candidates' articles. Their education, residence, and other information is mentioned. It is better to edit this article, if necessary, rather than delete it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty6 (talk • contribs)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a voter's guide. I have no interest in the word games between "provide information" and "promote". Let's face it, he's a marginal candidate looking for any exposure he can get. Fan-1967 02:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Fan-1967. Also note that Liberty6 appears to be a SPA which seem to frequently appear when politics are being discussed here on Wikipedia. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^{contribs Count} 03:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Not exactly. The only edits from Liberty6 are directly related to this candidate. Presumably an employee or supporter. Fan-1967 03:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are a number of 666 mentions in Google News about this candidate but mostly are in the also running categoty. [1]. a

• I actually meant that single purpose accounts frequently seem to come up when politics are being discussed, not this specific user. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^{contribs Count} 03:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are 666 mentions of this candidate in Google News. [2]. Most are of the also running is variety. He wasn't invited to participate in the debates because he didn't meet the criteria outlined by the organisers. [3]. Capitalistroadster 03:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete recreate if he wins.-- danntm ^T _C 04:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There are many articles on people who are not as known as James Warner. James Warner's status as not being very popular is not a legitimate reason for deletion of this article. If that was a legitimate reason, that than deleting every reference of him on every article in Wikipedia would be reasonable along with deleting every reference of every person not as popular as he is. The information regarding why he was not invited to participate should be added to the article if you believe the article is biased in that respect. Also, I do not know what is meant by,"Most are of the also running is variety." Use correct grammar if you wish for me to understand what was attempted to be conveyed. Liberty6 04:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't understand the grammar, let me clarify: Most of the news mentions were of the "Also running is James Wermer" variety. He was mentioned in the articles, but only barely. Fan-1967 04:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In order for article mentions to matter for WP:BIO and similar guidelines they need to be more than just passing references. JoshuaZ 20:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• delete And we are woking on deleting THOSE articles as well. From the relevent guideline, WP:BIO: A political subject is notable if they are, and I quote, "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature." This guy holds, nor has ever held, any political office at the international, national, state or provincial level. If he has nothing else to make him notable, he doesn't belong here... --Jayron32 04:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete useless. --MonkBirdDuke 05:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Any relevant information about him can be listed on Texas gubernatorial election, 2006. Cynical 22:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because he is not a main candidate it would be wrong to not let him have an article in the same way that they didn't let him in the debate I say keep and if the article is deleted i'll recreate it and if it's deleted again i'll recreate it again, and again, and again, and again. --Jimwitz 20:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• And the article will be protected, and you will be blocked. Announcing your intention to violate Wikipedia procedures is perhaps not the wisest course of action. Fan-1967 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• among the many things that WikiPedia is not is a blog. Wikipedia is not about unfettered and free expression. It is an encyclopedia, and as such, there are certain standards against which a subject will be judged by community consensus. The basic guidelines of verifiability and notability require that a subject meets a minimum baseline before the community will accept it. This guy does not rate. If you wish to find a vehicle to bring this guy greater exposure, great, more power to you. The internet is FULL of websites and tools to do exactly what you wish. Wikipedia is not one of them. --Jayron32 20:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• I never said I was going to do anything bad. Obviously I would just forget about it if they blocked e from recreating the article. I just want to have an aricle for James Werner but if you want me to stop on the article so bad I will but what you have to relize is i'm no trying to vandalize anything and i'm writing about a real politician who's name is going to be on the 2006 Teas Governor Race ballot just like Rick Perry, Chris Bell, Kinky Freidman, and Karole Keeton Strayhorn. Im not writing about my 6th grade talent show. Jimwitz 22:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just to clarify the standards: if an AFD nomination concludes with a consensus to delete, recreating the article in defiance of that decision is considered to be vandalism. Abiding by community consensus is one of the practices necessary in order to keep the project running (semi-)smoothly. Fan-1967 14:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If for any reason it would be an act of vandalism I would not recreate the article but if their was no notice indicating that it would be vandlism their would be no harm in recreating the article. I admit I overeacted but if they deleted it a second time I wouldn't keep recreating it. Jimwitz 16:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Rewrite it if necessary. Mike Richardson 05:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Liberty6 08:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please elaborate By what standard should the article be kept? Simply noting "keep" does not help the closing admin decide to keep the article. Please provide hard evidence to the notability of this subject. NOT unsubstantiated claims, but links or citations of URL or print references that establish his notability... AfD is not a democracy; its not a vote. Its about presenting evidence to help the closing admin make a decision. --Jayron32 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of my elaborating can be found by simply looking for what I typed on this page. Also, to further elaborate, the article(James Werner) should be kept and revised. Revising, if done correctly, is obviously something that can be done that will make the article easier to understand and verifiable. In addition to that, Jesse Ventura polled about 10% before the debates and he went on to win the election, despite the fact that no major polls indicated that he was leading. While, it is true that James Werner is/was not as popular as Jesse Ventura and he is not polling 10% in any major polls, he is still polling in single digits, not a fraction of a percent, and although he did not participate in the debates, he is a candidate that should have an article. Michael Badnarik can be considered a person and a candidate(former and present) that shouldn't have an article, but does. How is he extremely more significant that James Werner? Is it because Michael ran for president and James is only a candidate for a less significant office? Think about it, what harm is done by keeping the article on James Werner, considering the article will be revised in the ways necessary? Liberty6 04:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply Harm is not a criterion for keeping the article in question. Notability IS. You merely claim that he is notable. PROVIDE SOME SOURCES. Dozens of people run for dozens of local elections. What makes him more notable than the average political candidate. Be careful with the "If Y than X" arguement. Every article needs to be judged of its own merits. Still, if we must use Badnarik for analogy purposese, here goes. Badnarik received CONSIDERABLE national press coverage during his run for president. Though Nader ultimately received more vote, the Libertarian Party is the third largest party in the U.S. via total registered memebers, and the Presidential Election is considerably more notable than a congressional race. Its the nature of the race he was involved in. Badnarik's political positions were put under the scrutiny of the national press. He merits significant NON TRIVIAL mention in several fact-checked sources. We have no evidence that Werner has been covered by any source more notable than a voter guide. THAT is the standard that we are going by when we make the case for delete. If you want to change our minds, provide evidence to the contrary by putting forward NON TRIVIAL, FACT CHECKED references to this candidate. If you can provide them, you will swing the discussion to your favor. In the absence of such sources, however, your pleas, however heartfelt, will not sway the consensus. --Jayron32 05:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Think about it, what harm is done by keeping the article on James Werner, considering the article will be revised in the ways necessary?

• There is no necessary way to revise this article because no matter how it is done, the subject will still not be notable. Above, Liberty6 argues that Jesse Ventura has a Wikipedia article but then goes on to admit that James Werner is less notable than Jesse Ventura. This candidate is simply not significant enough for this encyclopedia. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 17:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• 1) Jesse Ventura is notable independant of his political career. His notability comes from his career as an actor and wrestler, which would have made him worthy of a Wikipedia article had he never even run for Governor. ALso 2) Had Jesse Ventura not been notable before he ran for governor, he would not have been notable polling only 10% of the electorate. He would have become notable the day he won the election. If THAT had been the case, he could only get an article after he had won. This guy is in the same situation. If he wins, we'll write an article about him. He hasn't won yet. Therefore he doesn't yet need an article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Jayron32 02:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's BEEN thought about and thought about plenty, long before you showed up. The harm, as I stated in my nomination, is in allowing Wikipedia to be mistaken for a free promotional vehicle. It's not; nor is a free webhosting service, a blog, a mode for free expression, a repository of unreferenced and speculative factoids, a way to attract attention to someone's cause, an unmediated and one-sided depository of candidate press releases and soundbites, a disguised campaign position paper, a dessert topping or a floor wax. Wikipedia aspires to be a vital and valuable online ENCYCLOPEDIA; devaluing it just so someone can get a few more votes for his pet candidate or pet cause DOES do it harm. --Calton | Talk 05:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I realize that we can't list every candidate for every office up for grabs in the United States (or anywhere in the world), but I think WP:BIO as it relates to politicians needs to be revised. I think we need to include information about candidates as well as victors in important races. A consensus should be reached as to what those races are, but I would definitely assume that governor, secretary of state, AG, etc. would be among them. I am in COMPLETE agreement that articles need to be NPOV - we don't want them to be big, free promotional vehicles (and it sounds like this has been an issue here), but then that's a different issue, and we need to address that accordingly. I can't think of one thing more confusing and in need of clarification than politics to most people - having a deletionist policy and only listing winners/officeholders seems to be well beside the point of what Wikipedia is for. My humble opinion. (Full disclosure: I was the author of an article of a candidate for secretary of state in my state that was deleted, despite media attention and notability.) NickBurns 19:39, 19 October 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.