Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travis Liles

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. In spite of the flood of single purpose accounts arguing to keep the article, no evidence of the subject meeting WP:BIO was presented. Lincolnite's responses are valid, and the article reads as a promotion. --Coredesat 20:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Travis Liles

Travis Liles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsuccessful congressional candidate from 2004. Received under 4% of the Democratic primary vote (placing last) and raised just $179. Googling him returns few results apart from Wikipedia and mirror sites. He does not appear to have "been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" as required by WP:BIO. Does not appear to have ever held any elected office. Insufficiently notable. Lincolnite 09:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • delete Unsuccessful candidates running in one of the primaries but not getting the party nomination are not notable, even by my somewhat latitudinarian standards for politicians.DGG 00:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable--Ng.j 20:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • do not delete Anyone who has put the time forth to run and who is still active in politics should be active on the Wikipedia site. Travis could decide to run again and possibly win, the article should stay. 161.7.2.160Montana Man
  • Comment: I'm afraid that's not the basis on which decisions on deleting articles are made. Take a look at WP:BIO, which explains Wikipedia's policies on deleting biographical articles. If you think the Travis Liles article meets the criteria for inclusion, then leave a message here explaining why. However, the fact that someone's put in the time to run for office is not, in and of itself, enough. Nor is the possibility (evidenced where?) that they may run again. -- Lincolnite 16:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • do not delete Candidate running for a party nomination in a public election in the USA is sufficiently notable. This person is very active in politics and is constantly mentioned as a candidate again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.148.14.65 (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment: See my reply to the previous comment. Precedent has it, though, that "running for a party nomination in a public election in the USA" is not enough to confer notability. -- Lincolnite 16:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • do not delete While openly gay candidates are not without precedent, they are still rare in this age and should be held in the high esteem that history will one day provide to them. His courage should maintain his place here. .....Caskey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.0.245.226 (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
  • do not delete Whats the point of having wikipedia if were going to censor entries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.49.97 (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC). Note also that this user deleted the AfD tag from the Travis Liles article.
  • Comment: Here at Wikipedia, we don't censor entries but we do establish minimum standards for how much notability is required to merit an article. Take a look at WP:BIO. -- Lincolnite 16:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree that the subject of the article is not notable. The list of accomplishments are no more extraordinary then the typical person that volunteers for political campaigns. I once stayed at a Holiday Inn, and I have $180.00 in my pocket. This doesn't mean I should have my own Wikipedia page.72.160.13.13 00:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Critical Reviewer of Information
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.