Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Craig Schoonmaker (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 13:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L. Craig Schoonmaker

I just prodded this article as describing a nonnotable person. Someone has removed the prod, so now I'm listing it here. Klooge 23:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to the first nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Craig Schoonmaker. --Lambiam^Talk 23:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Here is an article about a colorful figure in US politics, whose activities have been as diverse as they are bizarre. This the sort of article that makes Wikipedia a joy to read. Would Wikipedia be improved by deleting this article? No. Would it be diminished? I think so. Ground Zero | t 23:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable politician. The party he founded doesn't even have a wikipedia page. The article even notes that it is primarily a one man operation. Did you know that hundreds of people ran for governor of California in the last election?--Nick Y. 00:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So if people care to write articles about any of them, should those articles be deleted as well. Did you know that there are about 90 Wikipedia articles about Pokemon characters? And they are fictional. L. Craig Schoonmaker is, on the other hand, real. (As they say, you can't make this sort of stuff up.) It makes sense that if his party is a one-person operation, it is covered in the article about him, rather than in a separate article, doesn't it? If this article were just a stub that said, "L. Craig Schoonmaker was a candidate for President of the United States.", I be with you in supporting deletion. But this article provides a lot more information than that. What harm is the article doing? In what way would Wikipedia be improved by deleting this article? Ground Zero | t 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The Pokemon characters should be merged anyway. However, there is one key difference: all of the Pokemon information, being much more popular than any non-notable real people, is more verifiable and has more interested editors. —Centrx→talk • 21:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Invention of the term "gay pride" makes him significant, and the other stuff makes the article quite interesting. CJCurrie 02:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Coining "Gay Pride" appears to be his only claim to fame - not enough to be encyclopedically notable beyond a mention and an external link to his claims in the Gay Pride article. The other stuff is just crazy crank one man party politics. I'm sure most crank political parties have pretty interesting manifestos - it doesnt automatically make them encyclopedic enough for their own article though. Bwithh 03:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The only evidence he introduced the term "gay pride" is in things written by himself on websites. It should have been deleted in the previous nomination. Some of his 1500 Google hits are a mix of his own websites[1][2][3], a homemade list of attemptedly notable gay people[4], letters to the editor by him[5] and several bad Wikipedia mirrors, etc. —Centrx→talk • 21:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: so far, no one voting to delete this article, including the nominator, has provided a reason for deletion that is consistent with the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The rationale always seems to be "he's non-notable". As the essay on notability notes (WP:N), Wikipedia does not have any policy on notability. It has policies on verifiability, vanity and original research. not on notability. Ground Zero | t 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Response I did not vote for delete due to a belief that the subject is non-notable. I voted for delete because - as I stated - that this subject does not have enough notability to be encyclopedically notable for his own article in Wikipedia . Can you see and appreciate the difference? The "this article does no harm" argument inherently fails to understand that Wikipedia is an attempt at an encyclopedia and "harmless" articles of insufficient notability do cumulative damage to the authority of this attempt. Bwithh 02:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:Deletion policy states under Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles that may require deletion that if the "subject of article fails...WP:BIO (for biographies)", then it "may require deletion". Note that the title of WP:BIO is "Wikipedia:Notability (people)". The Deletion policy also refers to WP:NOT, which states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: ... Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety." The rationale of non-notability refers to these policies and guidelines, and is a specific application of the fundamental principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 23:01, 28 June 2006

WP:BIO is a guideline, not a policy. Furthermore, it states: "The following types of people may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them. This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted."

WP:N is not even a guideline. It is an interesting interpretation that notability is a "specific application" of a fundamental principle when WP:N states that: "There is no official policy on notability. However, there are a number of consensual guidelines regarding notability within a limited subject field...." and "Although notability is not formal policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious), it is the opinion of some editors that this is what is meant by Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (which is a formal policy)." You are entitled to your interpretation of notability and WP:5P, which is shared by some other editors, but it just isn't policy, and there is no accepted consensus on it. If consensus could be developed on notability, you can be sure that it would have been added as a real ground for deletion to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy a long time ago.

Schonmaker filed to run for President of the US in 2005, and announced in March 2006 that he is running for mayor of Newark, New Jersey. This doesn't make him famous, or important, but given his colorful background, it makes him an amusing addition to the wonderful world of Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 00:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

So, these delete recommendations do cite policy, they just don't agree with your interpretation of it. Also, note that any U.S. citizen over the age of 35 can run for President of the United States, and presumably there is similar openness in the Newark mayoral race. —Centrx→talk • 07:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ground Zero says:it makes him an amusing addition to the wonderful world of Wikipedia. That kind of attitude is exactly why we have official policies such as Wikipedia:Deletion policy and WP:NOT which specifically support "consensually accepted guidelines" such as WP:BIO. Bwithh 02:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep due to involvement with gay pride and per comments above. Yamaguchi先生 07:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Ground Zero. bbx 07:21, 29 June 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.