Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Olson

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. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Olson

Pete Olson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Candidate for Congress with no other claims to notability. Way, way too soon for an article on this guy--if he wins the election (though he might be favored), maybe we can create an article on him. Blueboy96 20:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO#Politicians - being a candidate does not confer notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTE. Only 4 gnews hits and only one is actually about him.  Frank  |  talk  20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. In a 10-person primary, he finished second, qualifying for a runoff. The runoff was against the winner of the 2006 special election, who had therefore held the seat for a while, yet he beat her. This is enough of an achievement to merit a bio article. Furthermore, although the current state of the article doesn't reflect it, there was certainly coverage of him, as both the primary and the runoff drew press attention. JamesMLane t c 20:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - apparently, Shelley Sekula-Gibbs only won the special election to serve for < 2 months, and at the same time lost the general election for the following term. (An odd situation, I'd say.)  Frank  |  talk  21:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. Maybe he's going to be famous one day, maybe not. Until then, he doesn't need an article, for he, at this point, appears to fail WP:BIO. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Political candidates are not notable unless/until they win. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note in response to this comment: He DID win the runoff and he is the nominee. And he is the odds on favorite to win the Congressional seat.--InaMaka (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. It is ludicrous not to have an article about Pete Olson who is going to be the next Congressman from Sugar Land/Missouri City/Pearland/Clear Lake, Texas. He is going beat Nick Lampson, the Democrat, by a resounding margin. It is a majority Republican district and it has been held by Republicans for years and year, namely Tom Delay and Ron Paul. The district only voted in Lampson because the Republican, Gibbs, had to run a write in campaign--even then she almost beat Lampson in a write in campaign. Olson was endorsed by most of the Texas Republican Congressmen in the primary and in the run-off. Even Stuart Rothenberg states that this district is the best shot for a Republican takeover of a Democrat seat in Congress. There is plenty of press coverage of this race. It is already being followed by the national media because the Delay and Paul connections to the seat and the fact that Democrat will lose.--InaMaka (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. InaMaka and I have added citations showing coverage of Olson and assessment of this race as one of national importance. It's understandable that the local papers have covered it, but it's also been noted by national analysts Stuart Rothenberg and Electoral-vote.com (the latter of which links to our article about Olson). JamesMLane t c 00:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: elected official != notability. seicer | talk | contribs 01:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - It's true there are more sources now. But the sources are about the primaries and about the upcoming election. There are literally hundreds of these things around the country, and probably over a thousand candidates. They are not notable just because they are candidates. Some of these sources would be great if he is elected, so the information should be set aside until such time as he actually is. Otherwise, notability hasn't been established.  Frank  |  talk  02:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting that we should keep articles about every political candidate, for every office, on every party's line. If you limit it to major-party candidates for the national legislature, though (and even add in candidates for Governor, in the U.S.), there are fewer than one thousand. Among them, Olson is more notable than most nonincumbents, having won a prominent multi-way primary. JamesMLane t c 03:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  I don't see the math on this one. 435 house reps + 100 senators, 2 major parties...that's 1070 candidates right there. (Probably about half of them already have pages as incumbents, although not all seats have an incumbent in the race.) There are credible third-party candidates in some of those elections, and governors, and primaries, and "exploratory committees..." Even so, let's say it's "only" 500. That's still 500 pages we're talking about adding/keeping because someone may become notable later on if they win. I don't think that's how notability works. Wikipedia is not a news source. That's what Wikinews is for.  Frank  |  talk  16:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  The exact numbers aren't important, but, since you ask -- all 100 Senate seats are never contested. It's usually only 33 or 34, but 35 this year because of Craig Thomas's death. Even with 470 Congressional seats at stake, there won't be 940 candidates, because some incumbents will be unopposed. (For example, the Republicans may not be able to get anyone onto the ballot against Kerry. [1]) Also, quite a few of the nonincumbents have held other offices and have articles anyway. More broadly, I'm not arguing for keeping such articles because the person may become notable later on, but rather that the candidate is notable now, even if not eleccted. Presumably everyone agrees that merely contesting a significant election can be enough to establish notability, as in the case of Wendell Willkie, whose notability comes almost entirely from his failed campaign for the presidency. I believe that there's enough public attention to second-tier races that the same principle applies. I assess notability primarily from the standpoint of service to our readers. If a significant number of people will come to Wikipedia looking for information about someone, then we should provide that information if there are enough reliable sources to support an article. JamesMLane t c 18:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  Leaving the math aside (and of course you're 100% correct about the Senate), I still think you've hit the nail on the head for me, actually. Since notability is not temporary, it seems right not to create an article about someone for whom notability hasn't been established. An analogy is a dictionary - words are not put into dictionaries immediately upon entering use in the language; there is some time needed to establish that a word is "notable" in the context of a dictionary before inclusion. I submit that the thought that people come to Wikipedia looking for a particular piece of information is not sufficient reason to place that information in Wikipedia for them to find. The subject must still be notable. (I recognize that the community is moving toward more lenient definitions lately, such as lists of programs on given cable TV stations, for example...) There is a very good project available for this - wikinews.org. Once the election cycle is over, it will be very clear which candidates are worthy of encyclopedic entries. Picking randomly, is the losing candidate in the, say, 1978 Ohio first Congressional district notable simply for running in that election? I don't think so. And 30 years from now, this candidate won't be - at least not for running in this election. If he becomes otherwise notable (such as by winning), by all means, this info would be worthy of inclusion.  Frank  |  talk  18:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The article is sourced, and said race is a notable one. No one knows whether he can win or nor, but considering the race as one pitting a well-regarded Democrat in a staunchly Republican district against the guy, the race is notable. If he loses though, maybe then he's no longer notable.Ngchen (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as well presented and well referenced article on human with real world relevance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable candidate in an important race for this cycle, as per Ngchen. -User:Umdunno —Preceding comment was added at 13:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  Also, per WP:BIO --> Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." as Pete Olson does. -User:Umdunno 13:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, normally political candidates are not in and of themselves notable, but since Olson is pretty much guaranteed to take this seat, it seems silly to delete it now only to recreate it after the election. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:37, 1 June 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.