Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Beren (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 was keep.  Sandstein  09:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Beren

Steve Beren (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural nomination. Closure relisted per the outcome of this DRV. Concerns at the time of the original AfD were WP:AUTO, WP:COI and unclear notability. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. My view hasn't changed, I said delete in the original AFD and see no reason to change that. He is an unsuccessful congressional candidate who got 16% of the general election vote in 2006 running again in 2008. Political candidates are not notable unless and until they win. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The main argument seems to have been that he failed WP:POLITICIAN, but as Les Grand pointed out, he met WP:BIO, with numerous verified second and third party sources[1] with non-trivial coverage, such as: Canada Free Press[2], Conservative Voice[3], Seattle Times[4], Seattle Post Intelligencer[5], New York Times[6], Seattle Times[7], Seattle Times[8], Seattle Post Intelligencer[9], Seattle Post Intelligencer[10], Seattle Times[11], Seattle Post-Intelligencer[12], NEws Tribune[13], Seattle Times[14], Seattle Post Intelligencer[15], Seattle Times[16], Seattle Times[17], Seattle Times[18], Crosscut Seattle[19]. This is more then enough to meet WP:BIO, even if he has never been a successful candidate. MrPrada (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per my arguments in previous AfD. As the abovepost indicates, plenty of sources to indicate notability and as this discussion, the previous one, and the DRV suggest a sufficient number of Wikipedians believe in this article nad so should be obliged to have the article kept. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I agree that there are "plenty of sources" but, fail to see how they establish his notability per our policies/guidelines. I'm not against a rewrite and wikifying by a neutral party however if he truly is notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep When we say that a candidate who fails to win an election is not necessarily notable, which is a correct statement of the policy, we do NOT mean that no candidate who fails to win cannot possibly be notable, if there are sources for it. This is one of the times when there are, so he is. DGG (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and others above, looks fine. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep In the above discussion, DGG makes a good point - while a failed candidacy in and of itself may not be notable, a subject that happens to be a failed candidate might be otherwise notable. There are multiple factors involved here - former candidate, current candidate, communist activist turned Republican politician, atheist now born again Christian, former member of Socialist Workers Party, very conservative candidate running against very liberal candidate who is very controversial, etc. The article itself has always been well sourced and quite balanced, with plenty of negative information to balance the stratightforward listing of facts. All known negative media references that were not already in have been added. I have tried as best as humanly possible to avoid COI thereby. Also, even in this discussion itself I am fine with however the process works out, and certainly would be the first to have no objection whatsoever to improvements in neutrality, accuracy, and sourcing. - Steve Beren, 5/22/08, 1:00 pm PDT
• Keep per MrPrada and DGG. John254 00:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep plenty of significant press coverage, so passes WP:BIO. Darkspots (talk) 00:16, 26 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.