Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Nelson

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 speedily A7 as a very worthy CV. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Nelson

Jim Nelson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Unsuccessful candidate for an election, no other claim to notability. Blueboy96 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Nominee of a major party for congress, founder of a nonprofit, author. At worst, would meet WP:BIO while failing WP:POL. MrPrada (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonprofit only gets 20 Yahoo hits and 41 Ghits, and his book doesn't get nearly enough coverage to pass WP:BK. Blueboy96 18:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• WP:GHITS, WP:HOLE, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, are all arguments to avoid. They make a case for cleanup, not for deletion. MrPrada (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Per MrPrada and the fact that he has been officially endorsed by WesPac [1]. --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. He fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BK, being notable neither as a politician nor an author. This appears to be little more than a platform for spamlinks, violating WP:SPAM. If he's ever elected to anything important or ever writes anything notable, then he will merit an article. Qworty (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete He's an impressive dude, but seems to me that he doesn't meet a single WP:N or WP:BIO criteria, and there's no obvious common-sense reason to override those policies. Townlake (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Provisional Keep The opposite of the argument presented by Qworty; if he fails WP:N and :BIO after losing the election, (if such happens) then the situation may be re-evaluated. For now, any candidate for a national-level political office is inherently noteworthy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender78 (talk • contribs)
  • Policy Note WP:POLITICIAN explicitly says otherwise. Townlake (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Coverage-just of the campaign, some of which is significant and non-trivial: Florida Times Union, CNN, Savanahh Morning NEws, Brunswick News 1, Oxford Press, Brunswick News 2, Brunswick News 3, Jackonsville.com, Brunswick News 4, and this list does not include editorials, endorsements, and election results from the New York Times. There is plenty more for those willing to do the research. Deleting this would set a bad precedent. MrPrada (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Candidates for a national legislature, even "nominees of a major party", are not considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Founding a non-profit is not notable, although founding a notable non-profit may be. Being an author is not notable. And while Google hits by themselves make a weak argument, the lack of reliable sources makes a rather strong one. --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither does WP:POLITICIAN inherently exclude such. Taken as a whole, it appears that the candidate is worthy enough to remain for now, on the basis that several items that, taken individually, would not equal notability, nonetheless add up to equal notability.Ender78 (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on both your comments I believe you misunderstand what is meant by inherent notability. Inherent notability is that which is acquired automatically by certain criteria. In the case of politicians, WP:POLITICIAN states that any member of a national or state legislature is inherently notable. You say "any candidate for a national-level political office is inherently noteworthy", and they may be noteworthy, but in Wikipedia terms, our guideline says that they are not inherently notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Firstly, this was a 2006 candidate, so all of the concern about spamlinks etc are unwarranted. Secondly, there was enough independent, non-trivial coverage of him to satisfy WP:BIO, even as he fails WP:POLITICIAN. There is likely further coverage on his other accomplishments, which means this is more then BLP1E(and arguing that an election is 1E would be a stretch). I think there's enough notability to warrant a keep. Also, I disagree with Dhartung's assessment that nominees of a major party party are not considered notable, JamesMLane has argued the opposite successfully at AfD and DRV. MrPrada (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I stand by WP:POLITICIAN, which does not grant inherent notability to candidates. If there are precedents -- people who do not otherwise meet WP:BIO who were kept just for being a nominee -- I suggest you point to those directly. --Dhartung | Talk 03:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. A major-party nominee for an important office (such as the national legislature) is generally notable, in my opinion. AfD discussions of such articles have gone both ways. It seems to depend on who shows up to comment. JamesMLane t c 04:19, 28 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.