Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Sklar
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 Delete without prejudice (talk page kept) to re-creation should notability be established. A person who runs for office and fails to be elected may be otherwise notable (the best example in recent American history might be Ross Perot). As the evidence currently stands, Shane Sklar does not fall into that category; should his notability be established in relation to Ron Paul, the question would need to be asked "should Shane Sklar have an article or should he be relegated to a section of the article on Ron Paul?" on the basis of independent vs. inextricably dependent notability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shane Sklar
Unnotable "politician" that never won any office, fails WP:BIO. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[9] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[10] Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.
- Politicians:
- --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, In regard to the "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone." part of the policy, I believe the fundraiser held in his honour by Nancy Pelosi and his crazy "hold defence contractors accountable for the Iraq War" conspiracy scheme could be used as an argument for notability. But on the other hand don't stand up very up well, he reminds me of John McDonnell in the UK. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- The difference is that, somehow God help us, John ""It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle" McDonnell managed to get elected as an M.P. While that says little for the intelligence of his constituents, that's why he's notable. Simply believing in ludicrous things is no mark of notability. Nick mallory (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- OIC, yea I realise now, McDonnell was actually elected MP. On a side note what did you mean by the "It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle" bit? I thought McDonnell had plans to pull straight out of Iraq if he won the leadership? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- McDonnell loves the IRA [1]. They're the people he was lionising. According to him the IRA are heroes. He wants to surrender to Al Quada as well of course. My keyboard doesn't have enough letters to express what I think about him. Nick mallory (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Woah! I did not know that! Myself personally, I've never liked him since I saw him do an interview with Jon Snow on the Channel 4 news, and he said that the 1st thing he'd do if he got in to power would be to instantly pull the troops out of Iraq regardless of the consequences. Don't get your hopes up though, I've desperately searched for a source of this for ages, I think at one point I even worked out what day it was broadcast on. Don't suppose anybody can help? Ryan4314 (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- McDonnell loves the IRA [1]. They're the people he was lionising. According to him the IRA are heroes. He wants to surrender to Al Quada as well of course. My keyboard doesn't have enough letters to express what I think about him. Nick mallory (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- OIC, yea I realise now, McDonnell was actually elected MP. On a side note what did you mean by the "It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle" bit? I thought McDonnell had plans to pull straight out of Iraq if he won the leadership? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- The difference is that, somehow God help us, John ""It's about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle" McDonnell managed to get elected as an M.P. While that says little for the intelligence of his constituents, that's why he's notable. Simply believing in ludicrous things is no mark of notability. Nick mallory (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Failed candidates don't get articles, that's been estabished many times before. Nick mallory (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and fix -- all it took was 30 seconds Google News' archive search to turn up 160 press mentions. Consider also that as Ron Paul's presidential campaign continues picking up steam, this guy's name will surface more often as Paul's old opponent. When people read iRon Paul's bio in a magazine, they may try to look up more info about Sklar. --A. B. (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Or they may just shake their heads and wonder what a small band of zealots on the internet are playing at. The fact that this loony lost to another one does not make him notable. Nick mallory (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Would another a person who failed to win a Congressional election churn up less Ghits? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good question. I'd say that those Google News hits are not related to Ron Paul's recent surge in the primaries from nobody status just a month ago. That's because only one is from 2007; the rest pre-date this primary season. I'm not saying his defeat to Ron Paul makes him notable -- just that I think there will be some demand for info on this person from our readers if Paul continues to gain traction. "Reader interest" is not a recognized criterion at all but still I think it's worth bearing in mind. For me, the deciding factor is the extensive non-trivial coverage. --A. B. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; failed candidates CAN get articles, obviously, and elected politicians may not get them. This one, however, fails to establish notability. WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL in regards to a possible future relevance coming from Ron Paul- even IF this occurs (highly dubious), information would belong on Ron Paul's page, not his failed opponent. Epthorn (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Losing candidates for major national--level office may or may not be notable, but in this special case he probably is regardless of the general practice.. There does seem to be enough coverage, though it does seem somewhat local and repetitive.DGG (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 21:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Has never held office. Egdirf (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non notable unless someome can come up with sources to prove otherwise. Being a candidate is not enough, nor are trivial mentions in stories about the election or opponent. Nuttah (talk) 11:00, 22 December 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.
