Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Kramer (politician)

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. John254 15:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Kramer (politician)

Steve Kramer (politician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

See first nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Kramer (politician) 1st nomination. Delete Non-notable and not sourced. GreenJoe 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Co-chair of significant national party clearly establishes notability. AfD two months ago was unanimous keep. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not notable. It simply means you chair something. Besides, they have 7 co-chairs. That's hardly notable. GreenJoe 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think this nomination is pretty inappropriate given the very recent, unanimous keep vote. Links to Green party websites verifying some of the info on this page seem to have been added in response to the unreferenced tag. You don't seem to be bringing any new information or arguments with this nomination. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It's been about 2 months since the last afd, so it's hardly inappropriate. GreenJoe 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment This is crazy. The last AFD was a unanimous keep, as is this AFD. If he was notable 2 months ago, what would make you think he's not-notable today? This is obviously a bad faith nomination. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep I agree with Rustavo. The article could probably be beefed up a bit, but I think it is notable. Slavlin 03:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thinking != actuality. If he's notable, prove it. GreenJoe 03:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable major figure in minor party. more than local significance.DGG 06:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Clearly notable, the lack of reliable third party sources in this case is due to a systemic bias by American media outlets and publications, third parties simply don't receive the coverage that the two major parties do but being a co chair of the most important third party (currently) in the U.S. is certainly notable. IvoShandor 09:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. May only be a big player in second-tier politics, but is a big player nevertheless and visible on the national stage. Notability is pretty evident. Arkyan • ^(talk) 14:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Co-chair of a very notable political party. And I notice this nom is speedy tagging, prodding and AfDing a majority of Green Party member articles. Could be a bad faith nom. --Oakshade 16:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:AGF. I saw a lot of non-notable articles in the category. GreenJoe 16:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• I always cringe when people claim systemic bias with regards to political articles. I'm also not sure whether being one of seven co-chairs of the party makes him notable. The complete lack of sourcing in the article makes me uncomfortable. Even the Greens' news clippings page only brings up five items when searching for 'Kramer' - and they're all from 2003. Going against the grain here, I know, but delete. (And the other co-chair that currently has an article. Rebecca Rotzler, doesn't look good either.} Tony Fox (arf!) 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You may indeed cringe but are clearly mistaken if you believe the American media covers third parties with the same vigor they do the two major parties. IvoShandor 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Co-Leader in a notable third party deserves article. Davewild 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There are 7 co-chairs, so that argument doesn't hold water. GreenJoe 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as this appears to be a notable figure within a minor party. Burntsauce 23:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. I do think it is notable that he's a co-chair.
• Keep Minority party candidates are notable, co-chairs of said parties are notable, recent (60 days ago) AfD was keep.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep one of the leaders of a political party. That's important even if the party in question is mostly unknown and marginal. Would like to see articles on the other leaders. --JJay 19:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There are 7 co-chairs, so that argument doesn't hold water. --GreenJoe 19:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, I do not believe your nomination or comment "hold water". As I previously stated, being one of the co-leaders of a national political party is important, even if the party in question has little or no real impact. For the equivalent situation see Democratic National Committee, where we have articles on the entire leadership, such as Susan Turnbull. --JJay 19:41, 19 May 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.