Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Boman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep. Anthøny 14:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Boman

Scott Boman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable perpetual candidate. Sliposlop 19:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - the large quantity of references seems to disagree. Pages that link to the subject of the article (aside from the two band paged) also support notability. --Sigma 7 07:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- notable and referenced perpetual candidate per Sigma 7. Ground Zero | t 11:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
However, the inclusion criteria for notability for politicians (WP:BIO#Additional criteria) lists the following:
  • Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.
  • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
  • Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.
Boman does not fulfill the first and third of the list of criteria. If you look at the (46 total) references ("press coverage", 2nd criterion) in more detail:
  • At least 11 references are from the Michigan Libertarian Party (which naturally, would support and promote their candidate, Scott Boman). This shouldn't really count as "objective press", but as "advertising press".
  • 10 references are general voter information, such as that provided by the League of Women Voters, which supplies info on all candidates for an election. Just because he's a candidate, he's included. This is not "press coverage because he's exceptionally notable", it's "press coverage because he's one of many candidates".
  • 7 references are articles about election results. Again, just because he was a candidate, he's included. For example, http://politicalgraveyard.com/geo/MI/ofc/usrep1990s.html shows that he was defeated...but so were a huge number of other candidates. This is not "press coverage because he's exceptionally notable", it's "information because he's one of many candidates".
  • 4 references are Scotty Boman hosted webpages (either http://scottyboman.lpwm.org or http://scottyboman.org)
  • 8 references list Scott Boman as an author.
Therefore, it does not seem that Boman fulfills the second of the list of criteria. Therefore, he appears to fulfill none of the criteria for inclusion as a politician.
Sliposlop 20:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Sliposlop 21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC) (corrected typo, added "46", disambiguate last sentence)
Sliposlop 09:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (another typo "covereage", clarify sentence regarding general information)
Comment - Enumerating references that do not support notability, but have application to supporting other content in an article, does not show that the subject is not notable, nor does it show that the article fails to assert notability of the subject matter.--Libertyguy 04:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - the large list of references do not satisfy the requirements of reliable sources that support notability. It only supports existence. -- Whpq 17:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - While it is true, that a "large list" does not, by itself, show much of anything, the fact is that the references support the content to which they are footnoted. This comment isn't a reason for deletion of this article, because the article is not simply a "large list." The sources are reliable for supporting the content that they reference. For instance, referencing a web page belonging to the subject is a reliable source if the content being supported is that the subject holds a specific point of view. In such an example, the purpose of the reference is not to support notability. If, however, one is referencing a source that shows notable achievement, such as a larger number of votes than another notable figure, then a source such as official government statistics is reliable. If one is trying to verify notable media presence, then citing news publications is appropriate. In sort, you have made a true statement that is not applicable to your position.--Libertyguy 04:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -
  • In 2006 alone, 23,524 well-enumerated Michigan voters cast a ballot for the Creswell/Bowman ticket. It is absurd and disingenuous to say that a candidate receiving that much support from the vox populi is "non-notable".
  • Bowman is a prominent spokesperson for the ONLY political party to have (openly & honestly) supported the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which when put to the voters, was enacted with a 16-percentage-point margin. He seems to represent a popular -- if clandestine -- position on an extremely contentious issue, even if there is much cognitive dissonance among the voters with respect to support for parties vs. issues. To delete mention of Bowman is to pretend that there is no disagreement on how to deal with racial discrimination. I daresay that the issue of race is one which is NOT settled in America.
  • The persistence of people arguing for deletion is, itself, is probably the strongest argument for continued inclusion. Truly "non-notable" topics wouldn't receive any discussion at all, only silence. The very fact that there is a vigorous group of people trying to recategorize Bowman as an Orwellian unperson is tacit recognition of his notability. Truly "non-notable" politicians wouldn't have the large number of active political enemies Bowman has.
  • Much of the same argument for "non-notability" was true of Abraham Lincoln in 1859.

Drcampbell 12:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The last name of the subject does not contain a letter "W." However, it is clear that you are writing about the same subject since you are referring specifically to the Michigan politician who ran for Lieutenant governor.--Libertyguy 14:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment
When I use the word "notable", I mean it strictly in the context of the criteria for inclusion within the Wikipedia at WP:BIO. I do not mean "notable" as defined in other contexts.
  • Drcambell wrote: It is absurd and disingenuous to say that a candidate receiving that much support from the vox populi is "non-notable".
This article is "non-notable" per the Wikipedia criteria in WP:BIO. Tens of thousands of people may vote for a candidate for local sheriff, but that doesn't mean that the candidate fulfills the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia simply because of the votes.
  • Drcambell wrote:The persistence of people arguing for deletion is, itself, is probably the strongest argument for continued inclusion.
This is not part of the criteria for inclusion. In fact, this article seems to have only been nominated for deletion once, which would actually contradict your conclusion.
Sliposlop 23:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)



  • Keep - This article was nominated for deletion before and the decision was to keep it. As a former Chair, and Vice Chair of a statewide political party, this subject is notable. This Michigan Politician has also been a candidate for his states second highest office. Finally, his constant presence on the states political stage is also notable. I question the objectivity of this deletion nomination. If he met the same criteria in the Democrat or Republican party, I doubt this discussion would even be taking place.--Libertyguy 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I might add that several editors in the community have done considerable editing on this article. This article has withstood the test of time, and a consensus has developed to keep it by proxy of the fact that others found it to be worth editing.--Libertyguy 05:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - There is no link to any previous AFD. If you are referring to the PROD (proposed deletion), you were the one who contested the proposed deletion with removal of the PROD tag. There is no discussion with a PROD, and hence no concenus to keep, or any sort of concensus for that matter. -- Whpq 12:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
No change. I am reviewing the rules about nominating articles for deletion after PROD removal. Even if it turns out there is no rule against it, my motion is to keep for the other reasons given by myself, and other reasons given by other editors.--Libertyguy 04:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - This Michigan Politician meets the criteria, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Several examples of "press coverage have been presented." The fact that some of these articles include discussion of other candidates, does not negate the fact that the coverage exists. In some articles Boman is the Primary topic. For example, ("Campbell, Bob, Dawson Bell and Zachary Gorchow. "POLITICALLY SPEAKING: Scotty Boman is running again", Detroit Free Press, May 22, 2006.) is an article who's title makes my point, and has a circulation of 329,989 Daily. A rough consensus to keep has been reached. One editor continues to argue the contrary.--69.246.54.228 14:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)



  • Keep - The subject has been in major publications; the assertion that the subject has only been written about in Libertarian Publications and voter guides is incorrect. He has been the subject of articles in a variety of publications. Most notably:
  • He was the subject of an article in a major daily, the Detroit Free Press (Campbell, Bob, Dawson Bell and Zachary Gorchow. "POLITICALLY SPEAKING: Scotty Boman is running again", Detroit Free Press, May 22, 2006.)
  • He was endorsed by another major daily (Editorial, Staff. "Detroit City Elections", Detroit News, 1997-08-31.). Why would a major daily (where notability is the name of the game) endorse a non-notable candidate?
  • The subject and the organization he founded were topics in Kalamazoo's major daily. (Mitchell, Jacqueline. "19 arrested at party in taboo Lafayette area", Kalamazoo Gazette, July/August, 2006.)

I could go on to describe his contributions to the Kalamazoo music scene in the 1980's but that would contain original research.--Kzooman 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment When I use the word "notable", I mean it strictly in the context of the criteria for inclusion within the Wikipedia at WP:BIO. I do not mean "notable" as defined in other contexts. Local newspapers publish endorsements on local candidates for every local election. This does not constitute "substantial news coverage" indicated by WP:BIO. Getting profiled in the Kalamazoo's major daily (Kalamazoo Gazette) is not "substantial press coverage"; to put things in perspective, the population of Kalamazoo, Michigan is around 75,312 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2642160.html) Sliposlop 23:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Citing the census data on the population of Kalamazoo, doesn't refute the comments made by kzooman. These were only examples, not an exhaustive list. Two of these were the Detroit Free Press and the Detroit News which both serve a large metropolitan area. Sliposlop doesn't cite census data on Metropolitan Detroit.--Libertyguy 04:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I still say keep. I return to see some of my points have been made for me. There is more to consider. An article on a notable subject, need not list a plethora of superfluous references in a variety of publications to indicate widespread notability of the subject; this would be an example of over-referencing. This article has references supporting it’s specific content. Some of the references used, support notability and wide-spread recognition.

Difficulty un exhuming articles from major papers, long after the fact, does not mean they don’t exist. Many major publications stop providing free online access to articles after only a couple of weeks. There may be far more such articles published without them being accessible. The fact that some articles can be located by reliable third parties ( such as the Lansing City Pulse (Berg, Erica. "A ‘different’ state board may await winners", Lansing City Pulse, October 2, 2002.)[ http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/021030/votersguide/boardofed.html], is an indicator (I know Michigan’s capital is a small town, that is beside the point. Many publications are circulated beyond the city limits of the city after which they are named. Ever see a New York Times outside of New York?). Other examples I was able to locate readily (that remain available) are:

I forgot to sign the above comment attributed to me by the SineBot. The comment is mine, and I sign it here.--Kzooman 19:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment:
  • The Oakland Press (which serves Oakland County, Michigan) article mentions Boman's name only once, within a list of many candidates running for the State Board of Education, and the article indicates that the bottom six who did not win (including Boman) "each received 1 percent to 2 percent of the vote".
  • The News Herald article mentions Boman's name only once, within a list of many candidates "running for the governor's and lieutenant governor's seats".
  • The Michigan Education Digest article mentions Boman's name only once, within a list of many candidates running for the State Board of Education.
These three articles do not bolster any notion of notability for Boman; they only chronicle that he was one of many candidates.
-Sliposlop 10:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC); -Sliposlop 10:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)(corrected, "each", clarified "bottom six")
  • Keep - There are numerous examples of non-libertarian publications in the refrences. That alone makes this entry noteworthy. Mr. Boman has been mentioned in the press with a much higher frequency that nearly all other third party candidates. Having information about third party candidates, and not just the Democrats and Republicans, helps maintain Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. --Gstempfle 19:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment
  • Gstempfle wrote: There are numerous examples of non-libertarian publications in the refrences. That alone makes this entry noteworthy.
Most of the non-libertarian references simply chronicle the results of an election or provide voter information (please see my earlier enumeration).
  • Gstempfle wrote: Having information about third party candidates, and not just the Democrats and Republicans, helps maintain Wikipedia's policy of NPOV.
Wikipedia should not have information about any candidates simply because they are candidates. One reason is because of the policy on "no advertising" at WP:SPAM. The other reason is that the criteria for inclusion are in WP:BIO.
Sliposlop 23:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article meets Wikipedias criteria for Biographies of living persons, This discussion and a careful review of the article show that:
  • The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
  • The person has demonstrable wide name recognition
  • The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. It should be noted that in addition to political activity, the subject had an article in Physical Review A. This publication only prints articles that comprise such a contribution.
--Redandready 23:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Comment: Publication of an article in Physical Review alone does not constitute a "widely recognized contribution...part of the enduring historical record". Not every author, and co-author, of every published scientific article in the Physical Review is in the Wikipedia, nor should they be; the Physical Review is not "widely read" by people outside of the field of physics (you will not find it near the checkout counter of the local grocery store or at the bookstores of airports). Even within the scientific community, he does not rank in terms of other articles citing his article, as demonstrated by the Thomson ISI Highly-Cited service. The criteria for inclusion of politicians in WP:BIO states:
  • Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.
  • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
  • Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.
It does not appear that Scott Boman fulfills the criteria as a politician. (Please read my other comments above, especially the enumeration of reference sources)
Sliposlop 23:52, 25 October 2007 (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.