317:
think
Knowledge (XXG) is especially ill-suited for judging the political notability of candidates. In the United States, each state has a notability test of its own, namely ballot listing. Additionally, major parties have primaries or caucuses to determine notability. I will bring this up in Wiki C&E, but I think ballot listing by a major party in a federal election constitutes de facto notability, even if the candidate is not otherwise notable.--
144:. In general, I am quite OK with articles about major party candidates in one-on-one candiate races such as the 2006 house race. A good biography adds to our coverage of races which receive widespread media attention, and are useful to people interested in politics. The problem with this article is not one of notability, but that it looks like a political advert and not an encyclopedia article.
302:
supports your statement. Knowledge (XXG) is not a news outlet that is obligated to give "equal time" to two candidates. In any encyclopedia (not just
Knowledge (XXG)), there is bound to be more articles about incumbents than challengers because obviously, incumbents are inherently notable and not all
365:
might not have gotten his own wikipedia article in 1952, had
Knowledge (XXG) existed then, since he never held elective office before running for President. Bias for people who have been elected is still bias, and it still inappropriately favors incumbents -- people who already benefit from enhanced
284:
for
Knowledge (XXG) to feature one major party candidate for election and not another. In this instance, it reflects a pro-incumbent POV by default. Moreover, deleting a candidate's bio less than a month before the election could have a measurable effect on the outcome. On a Google search for "John
316:
of "political bias." I'm not asking for equal sized articles or equal time in an election article for less-competitive candidates. Nor am I suggesting that they will remain notable following an election. But I think failing to mention their existence is an expression of a POV. As for notability, I
366:
name rec. In fact, I think WP articles on little-known challengers are especially deserved, precisely because they are little-known. WP doesn't exist to level the playing field, but it does exist to provide a valuable source of NPOV information that would not otherwise be available to readers.--
375:
Have you even read
Eisenhower's article?? He was notable BEFORE he ran for President. He was Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during WWII, and headed NATO in 1949. To say that "I think WP articles on little-known challengers are especially deserved, precisely because they are
233:: No one seems to be listing this race as competitive, and the campaign website seems to have nothing biographical about the candidate. So building this article into a semi-objective one seems far-fetched. I don't think the article is useful as is, and it seems unlikely to ever be.
335:
I'm not questioning anybody's good faith here and even though I'm also a
Democrat, I'd like to think I'd make the same objection were a Republican's bio on the line. I just think this is a bad road to go down, with WP members deciding by a vote a candidate's viability.
493:. A major-party candidate for Congress, especially one who won a contested primary, is more notable than the typical minor-party candidate. Generally, a minor-party candidacy for Congress would add just about nothing to a person's notability.
285:
Russell
Florida," the Knowledge (XXG) page comes up at the top, even ahead of the candidate's own website, and it is entirely conceivable that the general public would come to this site for NPOV biographical information on this person.--
254:: It is a violation of NPOV for Knowledge (XXG) to be deleting the bios of major party US Congressional nominees less than 30 days before a General Election. Delete after the election if no assertion of notability follows.
480:
as appropriate. Maybe even an info box highlighting the current election but new articles for every candidate is a little much. There will probably be six or seven people on the ballot for this office.
198:, and thus is a major party candidate for the US House. Perhaps the info would be better suited in an article on the election itself, but, until such time there is one, this article ought to be kept. --
413:
216:
races nationwide; Yahoo returns his own site, local press, and other John
Russell's; and tying notability to the Mark Foley scandal via the opposing candidate is a stretch. Does not satisfy any
52:
160:
I've made a few changes to the original article to try to bring it up to snuff. Obviously a bad article isn't any good, but that has nothing to do with the subject's notability.--
125:
238:: I didn't realize that Russell's opponent had learned about some of Mark Foley's behavior and failed to act on that. That changes the complexion of the race.
210:. A massive 29 Google News hits on "John Russell" Florida; all local press, no nationwide media coverage; local news coverage indicate it's not a close race
406:. IMO, a major-party candidate in a major election (both of which are somewhat subjective, of course) is notable enough for a Knowledge (XXG) article. --
109:
449:. It's grossly POV to delete this article now. This is a newsworthy and noteworthy candidate from a major party running in a Congressional election.
214:
340:
as I read it has a significantly less strict bar for notability than the State of
Florida has in determining who gets to sit on their ballot.--
113:
49:
352:
To be clear, this isn't a bias for incumbents, it is a "bias" for people who are have been in office as opposed to people who have not.
17:
505:
485:
468:
453:
437:
380:
370:
356:
344:
330:
321:
307:
289:
275:
258:
246:
224:
202:
182:
164:
153:
132:
104:
81:
68:
501:
433:
462:
522:
58:
36:
376:
little-known" is completely contrary to
Knowledge (XXG) policy. Nobody "deserves" an article for being little-known!
121:
521:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
243:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
90:
194:. If the article is poor, it needs to be beefed up, not deleted. He was certainly notable enough to
498:
477:
430:
327:
239:
177:
148:
65:
482:
377:
304:
272:
97:
78:
410:
362:
221:
93:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
313:
299:
295:
281:
268:
450:
337:
217:
494:
426:
174:
145:
446:
367:
341:
318:
286:
255:
161:
101:
422:
407:
353:
326:
As the person who made the nomination, I'd like to point out that I'm a Democrat.
129:
211:
100:. Thus, this race is being more closely watched. If he loses, put it up for afd.
461:
per nom. Polispam. Only poll shows subject sixteen points behind the incumbent.
199:
465:
116:. Biographical articles must satisfy our biographical article criteria
425:, and don't delete it even if Russell loses the general election.
213:, not competitive, and not among even the 50 most closely watched
294:
I'm not asking for your opinion on what violates the "spirit" of
515:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
64:
should be deleted as he is a candidate, not an elected official
112:
for hosting candidate blurbs "until the election is over".
89:
until for the election. I get many yahoo news hits, such as
312:
Well, it, obviously in my view violates the prohibition in
126:
Knowledge (XXG):Criteria for inclusion of biographies
298:, I'm asking you to quote specifically what part of
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
525:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
92:. Most importantly, he is running against
77:. Article can be resurrected if he wins.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
280:I think it violates the spirit of
24:
271:are you basing this position on?
59:John Russell (Florida politician)
110:Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox
50:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
1:
169:Thanks for that. Changing to
506:08:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
486:04:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
469:04:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
454:20:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
438:08:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
414:15:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
381:11:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
371:21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
357:21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
345:22:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
331:22:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
322:20:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
308:20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
290:20:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
276:20:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
259:19:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
247:18:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
225:15:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
203:14:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
183:08:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
165:02:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
154:13:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
133:11:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
105:05:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
82:23:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
69:23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
53:20:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
361:Isn't that the same thing?
120:, on their merits. Please
542:
267:Specifically what part of
220:criteria for notability.
518:Please do not modify it.
114:Nor is it a crystal ball
32:Please do not modify it.
48:, defaulting to keep.
196:win a primary election
478:Virginia Brown-Waite
96:who is tied to the
98:Mark Foley scandal
504:
436:
363:Dwight Eisenhower
303:challengers are.
180:
151:
124:to show that the
94:Ginny Brown-Waite
533:
520:
497:
429:
178:
149:
128:are satisfied.
34:
541:
540:
536:
535:
534:
532:
531:
530:
529:
523:deletion review
516:
476:and merge into
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
539:
537:
528:
527:
511:
510:
509:
508:
471:
456:
440:
416:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
347:
328:DesertSky85451
262:
261:
249:
240:John Broughton
227:
205:
188:
187:
186:
185:
157:
156:
137:
136:
135:
84:
66:DesertSky85451
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
538:
526:
524:
519:
513:
512:
507:
503:
500:
496:
492:
489:
488:
487:
484:
479:
475:
472:
470:
467:
463:
460:
457:
455:
452:
448:
444:
441:
439:
435:
432:
428:
424:
420:
417:
415:
412:
409:
405:
402:
401:
382:
379:
378:wikipediatrix
374:
373:
372:
369:
364:
360:
359:
358:
355:
351:
348:
346:
343:
339:
334:
333:
332:
329:
325:
324:
323:
320:
315:
311:
310:
309:
306:
305:wikipediatrix
301:
297:
293:
292:
291:
288:
283:
279:
278:
277:
274:
273:wikipediatrix
270:
266:
265:
264:
263:
260:
257:
253:
250:
248:
245:
241:
237:
234:
232:
228:
226:
223:
219:
215:
212:
209:
206:
204:
201:
197:
193:
190:
189:
184:
181:
176:
172:
168:
167:
166:
163:
159:
158:
155:
152:
147:
143:
142:
138:
134:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
108:
107:
106:
103:
99:
95:
91:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:wikipediatrix
76:
73:
72:
71:
70:
67:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
517:
514:
490:
473:
458:
442:
418:
403:
349:
251:
235:
230:
229:
207:
195:
191:
170:
140:
139:
122:cite sources
117:
86:
74:
63:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
451:UncleFester
443:Strong Keep
252:Strong Keep
231:Weak delete
495:JamesMLane
427:JamesMLane
175:Sjakkalle
146:Sjakkalle
447:Francisx
368:Francisx
342:Francisx
319:Francisx
287:Francisx
256:Francisx
179:(Check!)
162:Francisx
150:(Check!)
491:Comment
483:Tbeatty
354:JoshuaZ
350:Comment
314:WP:NPOV
300:WP:NPOV
296:WP:NPOV
282:WP:NPOV
269:WP:NPOV
130:Uncle G
102:Arbusto
474:Delete
459:Delete
411:(talk)
338:WP:Bio
218:WP:BIO
208:Delete
200:Sholom
141:Delete
75:Delete
466:Aaron
222:Sandy
16:<
445:per
423:Russ
421:per
419:Keep
408:Russ
404:Keep
244:Talk
236:Keep
192:Keep
171:keep
87:Keep
242:|
118:now
481:--
464:--
173:.
502:c
499:t
434:c
431:t
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.