Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Alexander (politician) (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The result was Keep and Withdrawn. While I still see this bio as failing completely, I think I should have waited until after the election to re propose deletion. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stewart Alexander (politician)

Stewart Alexander (politician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The last AfD was a conditional keep, for providing sources. This has not been done, and I allowed 2 months to provide them. The only citations indicate the existence of the person, not his notability as a politician. The articles primary claim to fame is being a vice presidential candidate and nothing else. During the last AfD, something went overlooked. King Vegita, who displays his real name on his userpage, presented a major COI by using himself as a citation. So I say delete per no realiable third party sources and fails all three points at Politician. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Very Weak delete. I'm kind of surprised that the subject doesn't have more coverage as a vice presidential candidate. I've hunted for some sources, but unfortunately, they just don't seem to exist. I suspect that there are some socialist newspapers out there that could be used, but I'm not terribly familiar with the subject. If someone can bring some up, then great; otherwise, this needs to go. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep and cleanup. The article doesn't seem to have changed much since (the end of) the last nomination, and neither has my view of it.

The sources issue seems to be ending up a bit catch-22, since if those of us who have them add them, we may be accused of COI, while if we don't the article may be deleted. How about I list some here, just to establish that they exist?

Considering only printed sources that have no connection to socialism or the Socialist Party still gives Ballot Access News issues in October 2007, November 2007, January 2008, and March 2008; The Fresno Bee (archives no longer accessible but a copy available here); The Tampa Tribune (again, no longer in their online archives but still accessible here); The Fresno City College Rampage;

Adding similar purely electronic sources gives another half dozen or so posts at Ballot Access News, more at Third Party Watch, to say nothing of various articles on The Daily Radical and several Indymedias. (At some point we lose consensus on reliability.) There are also references, say, at the California Secretary of State's Web site.

Then we can add sources which, while independent of Alexander himself, have an interest in his candidacy. For instance, a recent issue of The Michigan Socialist has Alexander on its cover. The Socialist discusses Alexander in this issue and this issue, along with various issues of The Organizer and the Socialist Party of Boston Bulletin. Those were printed sources I'm aware of, Web sources include socialistparty-usa.org, vote-socialist.org, votesocialist2008.org, votebrianmoore.com, and peaceandfreedom.org.

So far I've been trying to limit my involvement with the article, due to COI concerns. Perhaps I should see if I can find some time to play with it. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 07:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment:I can see this took some time to do, and I commend you for it, seriously. Although none of your examples meet the requirements I've specified. They do support the fact that he is in the race, on the ballot, and prove his existence. However, they do not prove that he is any way, shape or form, notable. Let me show you, from the links I presented in my nomination above, exactly what I mean, bolding where appropriate:

• Taken From Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources, which is policy:

1. Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

• Taken From Wikipedia:POLITICIAN#Politicians and is a guideline:

1. Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.
2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.
3. 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 far as I can tell, there are no third party sources, i.e. anything outside the world of Socialism to denote his notability. If in fact I am wrong, I am willing to withdraw accordingly. But I'd like a keep !vote to be based off of a policy, or at least a guideline. And my apologies for not notifying the editors to the article. I will do this now. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it didn't take that much time, since I knew where most of those sources were. Whatever effort I put in went into arranging them in order of both reliability and independence. This is why I start off with undeniably third-party sources such as The Tampa Tribune, The Fresno Bee, and Ballot Access News -- all most certainly "outside the world of Socialism".

Perhaps we are of differing opinions as to which "subject" the sources must be "outside"? My impression is that this is the "subject" of the article itself -- Stewart Alexander -- and all of the sources I link to above are completely independent of him. Most of them are also independent of his supporters in the Socialist Party and Peace and Freedom Party, and even setting those aside leaves plenty to establish notability.

Just a final note on WP:POLITICIAN -- I remember the discussions (around WP:BIO and WP:C&E) from the 2006 mid-term elections that led to the awkward phrase "unelected candidates". Others who were active at the time may recall that this formula was used to acknowledge the notability of elected party nominees such as Alexander, on the grounds that they had already won election in primaries or at conventions and were not (necessarily) just cranks with Web sites. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 19:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

While I sympathize with your views, I still do not see how this biography is notable. And I commend you for being calm and cool. Although there are three outside sources available, they merely source the fact that he is in the race, nothing more (need I even bother to say that a Socialist will not be the next president come Jan. 1st?). If it can be established that he is notable notwithstanding his candidacy, then I will withdraw, as mentioned. Can you show this here, now? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Notwithstanding his candidacy"? Alexander is notable in large part because he is the elected vice-presidential nominee of the Socialist Party. This notability is established by the sources I included above (along with those I may have missed and those yet to come). I think I should change my position to "strong keep" if this is the reason the article has been nominated for deletion. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and trim per the sources that have been provided. At this point, there's an assertion of notability per the general notability guidelines. However, there's a lot in there that needs to be trimmed out. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - First, I want to clear something up, Wikipedia:COI#Examples states: "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." I believe the reason was there, it was used to help establish notability in the face of SynergeticMaggot's first nom. The source is a third party source published as the official publication of the Socialist Party of Michigan, and though it is not an academic journal by any means, it was peer-reviewed. Statements in another article I wrote for that issue was heavily editted despite me being editor. This was done in reason, and with prompting.

Second, the WP:POLITICIAN guideline is written with intent to keep local politicians off of Wikipedia, a national level candidate running in the only nation-wide race, of a notable party, is not intended to be kept off. There is a non-explicit consensus on Wikipedia that third party presidential candidates are included. There is a template specifically for Wikipedia articles on Vice Presidential candidates from the Socialist Party.

Third, I would like to point out that this is a bad faith nom. SynergeticMaggot is upset over this diff in which I didn't bother to log in but posted something to him about an argument we had over whether the clap was clymidia or gonorhea. He threatened to have me banned (IRL) if I posted again without logging in, despite it not being against the rules if not used for sockpuppetry. He found the page through Wikistalking, which is against the rules, and expressed interest in trying to get Brian Moore (politician) deleted in the interest of aggravating me. KV(Talk) 22:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum - the consensus in the last AfD was not that it needed to be cleaned up to be kept, but rather that it should. It still should, if someone has time to work on it. The closer put words in collective mouths. KV(Talk) 22:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That dif has absolutely nothing to do with this article being challenged, and your remarks about banning are way out of line. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It has everything to do with it; your attempt to have things deleted for personal reasons is way out of line. KV(Talk) 22:48, 21 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.