Talk:John Kelly
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There is a general Wikipedia problem which arises here. There was a John Kelly who stood in the California 48th Congressional District Election, 2005, who is currently linked here. However given previous Wikipedia decisions on articles for deletion, I don't think he's notable enough to merit an article in his own right. Any comments? Mustafa Bevi 16:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- There are several options:
- 1. Wikify and disambiguate "John Kelly" on California 48th Congressional District Election, 2005 and add him here in the same way
- 2. Leave it as is (linking to this page), until he gets notable enough for an article
- 3. De-wikify the name on California 48th Congressional District Election, 2005
- 4. Remove the unsuccessful candidates from California 48th Congressional District Election, 2005
- Personally, I prefer (1) or (2), but if he is completely unknown, it should be (4)
- BTW Find-A-Grave has 8 famous "John Kelly". -- User:Docu
-
- I'm not sure about the "Wikipedia decisions on articles for deletion" or the level of rationality there, but the fellow that built Political Graveyard is the resident expert, and I'll post a note on User talk:Kestenbaum. I'd prefer (1) or (2).
- --William Allen Simpson 12:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the "Wikipedia decisions on articles for deletion" or the level of rationality there, but the fellow that built Political Graveyard is the resident expert, and I'll post a note on User talk:Kestenbaum. I'd prefer (1) or (2).
-
-
-
- That particular John Kelly isn't dead yet. He could still get elected next time. -- User:Docu
-
-
Expert? I just deal in a lot of bios of political figures, and my "standard of notability" is much lower than Wikipedia's.
FWIW, my Political Graveyard database has 26 men named "John Kelly" (including six without any middle name or initial), and nine named "John Kelley".
However, it seems to me that given Wikipedia considers members of state legislatures to be automatically notable, that a major party contender for Congress is at least that important, memorable, or (dare I say) notable.
However, using that standard literally would elevate a lot of routine "sacrificial lamb" nominees who get little notice and few votes. It also ignores the fact that in most districts the "real" contest is in the primary. Also, rarely, some independent candidates or smaller party nominees get a lot of attention and votes.
So, perhaps a better standard might be "any candidate for U.S. House or Senate who got, or is expected to get, at least a third of the votes in a primary or general election."
(In those rare instances where multiple members of Congress are elected at large from an entire state, that "one third" should be understood as based on the number of people voting, not the overall vote total for multiple seats.) Kestenbaum 13:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
