Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/They Also Ran

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. Phaedriel - 00:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] They Also Ran

They_Also_Ran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

A: This page is two years old and has no info. B: There are several books with this title. Delete. --Arperry 21:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It got lots of newspaper reviews. I'd say it passes WP:BK #1 quite easily. Zagalejo^^^ 21:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as neither stub class nor the fact that there are other books of the same title are valid reasons for deletion. 96T 13:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'd like to see it expanded to summarize some of the conclusions made in the book about various Presidential losers. --Jolomo 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete I've read the book, and although the losers of presidential elections are notable (and there's an article listing them, no doubt), Arprerry is right that this has no information. It's been two years, and no sign that this is going to improve. If someone wants to add the obvious improvement -- a list of losing candidates from Jefferson to Kerry, or do a redirect to "also-rans" or presidential election losers, then I'll vote for all the "Keep" electors in my state. Mandsford 23:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• It has enough information to be a legitimate stub. The book was written by a notable author and was apparently a best-seller [1], so I think it's best to give it more time to grow. Two years isn't that long. Zagalejo^^^ 19:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Bad Congressmen can be replaced after two years... bad articles don't usually get that much time. This one is on the way to becoming a lame duck. Mandsford 02:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You have no guidelines or policy to support your argument. Lots of the article requests at WP:MEA have not been fulfilled in over two years. Does that mean we should never have articles on those topics?

Again, They Also Ran isn't a bad article anyway; it's just a stub. It's better than no article at all. And as I've shown, the book fulfils our notability criteria. Some more evidence of notability: It's been reviewed and cited in scholarly journals and has even inspired a tourist attraction in Kansas. Zagalejo^^^ 03:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• You've shown nothing. Books get reviewed all the time. That, by itself, doesn't make them notable. As noted, the article hasn't improved since February 2006... and frankly, I don't have any faith that it's going to get any better. A couple of people have rattled off their favorite Wikipedia guidelines, but nobody cares enough to write a good article. There's no excuse for an article this weak on a book that anybody could check out from the library. Doesn't look like your article is going to get deleted this time around. May someone can double its size to four sentences before the next election. Mandsford 11:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Books get reviewed all the time. That, by itself, doesn't make them notable. If the books receive full-article reviews in major publications, then yes, they are notable, according to WP:BK #1. This book was first published in 1943, so most editors can't access the entire reviews from their computers without paying for them. But if we delete the article because of that, then we're adding to the systemic bias. Zagalejo^^^ 20:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• You know, if there were any attempt to expand this article, I'd say keep. But if the attitude is "give it more time to grow", I can say that it's not a vine that will get larger on its own. Nobody, including you and including me, cares enough to try to improve this article, which is essentially a couple of sentences about a book. There should probably be a category for silver medal presidential candidates (the closest is "Democratic presidential nominee", etc., which lists the winners and losers among nominees). I think that this article could be the start of that list, merely by citing who's profiled in the book. But if it's just going to be a "this was written by ____ and first published in 19__ by ______ Press", it's a lousy article. Mandsford 21:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've added as much as I could without making a special trip to the library. It's still short, but once again, being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Zagalejo^^^ 03:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • regarding these comments:
      • It's been two years, and no sign that this is going to improve.
      • it's not a vine that will get larger on its own. Nobody, including you and including me, cares enough to try to improve this article.
    • This is a really bad attitude. Perhaps the idea of an open-ended Encyclopedia that will be completed over the course of multiple generations (20-100 years) is abhorant to you and you wish to sabotage that effort by deleting articles that don't "get larger on their own". Look, if you can't do it, leave it alone, let someone else do it, it's not your problem or responsibility. -- 71.191.36.194 23:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article stub and disambiguation issues are not reason to delete. -- 71.191.36.194 23:02, 19 September 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.