211:, but cut most of the content. Article contains two citations from mainstream press. Smith may not be notable when judged on a nationwide scale, but his Oregon campaign appears just as notable to Oregonians as numerous articles of local significance. In addition, his approach to the Presidential race sounds unique, notable for its contrast with other candidates. I agree the current article reads way too much like a campaign brochure; the Platform section should be cut in its entirety, and much of the other sections as well. (Disclosure: I'm from Oregon, but know nothing about Smith beyond what I found via this WP article.) -
627:
internet, and is embarking on a novel endeavor. Subjective determinations on how much press coverage is needed to justify an article are shaky at best, as the mainstream media tends to focus on the horse-race aspects of an election. Active campaigning is enough, and the "self-promotion" claim is basically irrelevant when it comes to political candidates. I'll close with this: when in doubt, keep it.
672:
mostly to local papers curious about his
Quixotic run. I'm extremely sympathetic to anyone who wants to run, and if he became notable for his longshot run, that's one thing, but many other candidates are putting efforts into all early primary states and have gotten coverage for doing so, making them notable. -
125:. Presuming he appears on a ballot anywhere, he should be able to be found here, because people will be curious who he is. But he doesn't need to be given the treatment of being a full-fledged candidate, by having all other articles about the primary or candidates link to him along side the real candidates.
343:
It's certainly shorter, but the (true) phrase in the article, "Smith is unknown outside of Oregon, and has no previous experience in political office," proves non-notability. An article on a movie actor who simply said he was an aspiring actor who hoped to be a movie star, but admitted he wasn't even
541:
There are a lot of minor presidential candidates who have no chance to win, that shouldn't be a reason to remove this article. If this candidate has enough coverage to have a fully-cited non-stubbed article, then keep. I will change my vote if this is rewritten according to that and I am notified on
398:
I see my position is rather shaky, but the whole discussion seems perched on a slippery slope. Self-promotion? Much of politics is essentially self promotion. If you adopt that criteria, you need to be prepared to remove John Cox, and
Michael Savage, Mike Gravel, Al Sharpton and probably all the
377:
Of course, another article's possible lack of validity is irrelevant to this one's possible deletion. That said, this is an eggregious and obvious case of a non-notable non-candidate with zero exposure nationally, while Cox is an increasingly irrelevent candidate who is at least making pretentions
403:
I would propose you think more in terms of a broader wiki “mission.” Although it’s not practical to publish an all-encompassing catalogue – it should be the objective to capture meaningful perspectives and serve as a resource for voters to assess candidates on the basis of political philosophy.
671:
Active campaign is one thing, but his strategy of campaigning for a national office in one state (the equivalent of wanting to be a professional boxer but refusing to get into a boxing ring) makes him non-notable, and it can hardly be seen as "actively" campaigning. His coverage has been limited
626:
He's a declared and active (campaigning) candidate for
President of the United States. The fact that he isn't a current office holder or subjective determinations that he "doesn't have a snowballs chance" are completely irrelevant. Smith has received press coverage and a lot of attention on the
464:
per Pete, with the caveat that outside editors maintain the article and not the candidate, per my comments above. (Full disclosure--another
Oregonian here, but it's rare I vote for anybody of Smith's party.) Thinking in terms of Knowledge being a useful resource, I would expect that interest in
706:
It's possible that somewhere along the way, Mr. Smith actually edited this article to promote himself, but should that claim be made so lightly and without evidence? If incorrect, that claim may be offensive both to Mr. Smith and this article's creator. What happened to
407:
The internet and wikipedia hold a promise of increased information and “democracy” of ideas and access. You seem to be working contrary to that objective, ironically falling into patterns established by the conventional media that wikipedia aspires to replace.
689:
601:
430:" doesn't really hold water as an argument around here. Since interested third parties are involved, I would suggest you refrain from editing your own article and discuss any changes you want to make on the article's talk page.
608:
have a paragraph on him, though he's link in the template at the bottom of the page). His name is a possible search term, and if we're going to remove the stand-alone article, at least send readers somewhere useful.
528:
some fuzzy New Age outreach program. Many of those exist, and I suggest that this is less about What
Knowledge Could Become than in hijacking a popular and highly visible website for promotional purposes.
425:
You raise some good points. On the other hand, Knowledge isn't here to provide a platform for your philosophical contrast. We're just here to write a really good encyclopedia. As far as self-promtion, well,
404:
From that perspective it could be argued that my presence is more meaningful as a philosophical contrast than the myriad social conservatives who offer little meaningful distinction between their positions.
186:
Non-notable candidate campaigning in one state for a nationwide office. This has resulted in failing to gain other than local media coverage. Article reads like a campaign brochure, non-encyclopedic. -
514:. To address Mr. Smith's altogether-too-familiar rebuttal, Knowledge is a private website with the right to decide what it is. The Wikimedia Foundation has decided it is an encyclopedia ...
174:. Self-promotion. Mr. Smith has not demonstrated his own notability. Just filing with the FEC is insufficient basis for inclusion in Knowledge; filing carries no guarantee of ballot status. —
465:
outsider candidates would be strong enough that a person searching for this candidate might expect to find an article on him, especially since his candidate profile is listed in the
114:
512:
511:
per nom. It doesn't look like this fellow's thought of as notable IN Oregon either, given that a directed search has only 125 (not entirely relevant) G-hits
378:
about campaigning nationally, and at least has done it in the past. But deal with that one on its own merits, and not just because this is a bad article. -
327:: Can any of those supporting deletion please comment on my remarks, and on whether my deletion of about 2/3 of the material impacts their position? -
87:
82:
542:
my talk page. Without this, anyone could run for president with no campaigning/notability and not even try to win just to get a
Knowledge article. —
91:
630:
128:
74:
295:
that in itself is not a criteria for deletion and should not stand alone. However, this article also does not adhere to
Knowledge's policy on
48:. The issue here is not whether this is self-promotion or not -- the issue is lack of multiple non-trivial mentions from independent sources.
649:
634:
310:
132:
657:
17:
553:
703:
by an account that is not a single-purpose account and generally edits articles related to the
Western United States.
344:
actively seeking film roles, wouldn't meet muster for an article here, either, for the reasons Djma12 cited above. -
719:
676:
642:
618:
592:
578:
555:
533:
499:
479:
454:
434:
414:
382:
368:
348:
331:
319:
283:
262:
249:
239:
227:
215:
203:
191:
178:
166:
140:
56:
614:
450:. Comments like "doesn't stand a snowball's chance in the race" don't do anything to support the Delete argument.
734:
258:
Self promotion, and basically just his points of view on some issues and his ambition. Not worthy of an article.
36:
78:
733:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
653:
638:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
575:
136:
70:
62:
292:
711:
in the absence of evidence to the contrary? Have I perhaps missed some obvious evidence linking
572:
301:
53:
712:
700:
have a question, though: how does one conclude this is self-promotion? The article was created
716:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
586:"has minimal background as a politician," If he gets the party nomination, he'll be notable.
548:
447:
328:
212:
259:
564:
530:
155:
708:
690:
Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election
Republican candidates
602:
Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election
Republican candidates
568:
515:
496:
467:
451:
427:
411:
296:
278:
272:
246:
224:
159:
151:
49:
673:
379:
345:
188:
158:
for self-promotion. Merely filing FEC papers does not qualify for notability. See
108:
543:
492:
476:
431:
365:
361:
163:
270:
self-evident campaign page, and doesn't stand a snowball's chance in the race.
236:
175:
693:
610:
471:. Heck he's even got several interlanguage wikilinks. Or alternatively, a
588:
200:
475:
to the page on 2008 Republican candidates that has a paragraph on him.
235:
Not notable, slf promotion an he wants to be president? uuuuurgh. --
727:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
563:. Article is better with Pete's cuts (less violation of
704:
701:
104:
100:
96:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
154:for notability in political figures and violates
737:). No further edits should be made to this page.
299:. That is why I believe it should be deleted. --
8:
291:- While he does not meet the criteria for
428:That other guy over there is doing it
7:
495:has attached to their Keep opinion.
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
524:a soapbox for self-promotion,
360:: How should we deal with the
1:
123:Keep, but reduced links to it
297:biographies of living people
567:), but still fails to meet
754:
720:05:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
677:19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
643:19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
619:18:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
593:04:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
579:22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
556:21:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
534:20:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
500:12:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
480:20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
455:19:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
435:20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
415:18:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
383:04:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
369:16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
349:15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
332:14:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
320:14:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
284:14:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
263:09:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
250:09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
240:08:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
228:05:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
216:04:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
204:03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
192:03:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
179:02:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
167:01:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
141:12:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
57:12:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
730:Please do not modify it.
491:I agree with the caveat
32:Please do not modify it.
399:Third Party candidates.
715:to Michael Smith? --
658:few or no other edits
633:comment was added by
604:(which actually does
131:comment was added by
71:Michael Charles Smith
63:Michael Charles Smith
660:outside this topic.
709:assuming good faith
305:
223:Self-promotion. /
661:
646:
303:
282:
252:
245:User's 3rd edit.
144:
745:
732:
647:
628:
318:
315:
306:
276:
244:
126:
112:
94:
34:
753:
752:
748:
747:
746:
744:
743:
742:
741:
735:deletion review
728:
650:172.164.116.249
635:172.164.116.249
629:—The preceding
617:
571:notability. --
551:
317:
311:
302:
300:
127:—The preceding
85:
69:
66:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
751:
749:
740:
739:
723:
722:
682:
681:
680:
679:
663:
662:
621:
613:
595:
581:
558:
549:
536:
505:
504:
503:
502:
483:
482:
458:
457:
440:
439:
438:
437:
401:
400:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
372:
371:
352:
351:
335:
334:
322:
309:
286:
265:
253:
242:
230:
218:
206:
199:Non-notable.
194:
181:
169:
150:Does not meet
145:
119:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
750:
738:
736:
731:
725:
724:
721:
718:
714:
710:
705:
702:
699:
695:
691:
687:
684:
683:
678:
675:
670:
667:
666:
665:
664:
659:
655:
651:
644:
640:
636:
632:
625:
622:
620:
616:
612:
607:
603:
599:
596:
594:
591:
590:
585:
582:
580:
577:
574:
573:Seattle Skier
570:
566:
562:
559:
557:
554:
552:
547:
546:
540:
537:
535:
532:
527:
523:
519:
518:
513:
510:
507:
506:
501:
498:
494:
490:
487:
486:
485:
484:
481:
478:
474:
470:
469:
468:Baltimore Sun
463:
460:
459:
456:
453:
449:
445:
442:
441:
436:
433:
429:
424:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
413:
409:
405:
397:
394:
393:
384:
381:
376:
375:
374:
373:
370:
367:
363:
359:
356:
355:
354:
353:
350:
347:
342:
339:
338:
337:
336:
333:
330:
326:
323:
321:
316:
314:
307:
304:Cyrus Andiron
298:
294:
290:
287:
285:
280:
275:
274:
269:
266:
264:
261:
257:
254:
251:
248:
243:
241:
238:
234:
231:
229:
226:
222:
219:
217:
214:
210:
207:
205:
202:
198:
195:
193:
190:
185:
182:
180:
177:
173:
170:
168:
165:
161:
160:User:Mikesmth
157:
153:
149:
146:
142:
138:
134:
133:69.143.31.101
130:
124:
121:
120:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
729:
726:
717:Black Falcon
697:
685:
668:
623:
605:
597:
587:
583:
560:
544:
539:Weak Delete.
538:
525:
521:
516:
508:
488:
472:
466:
461:
443:
422:
410:
406:
402:
395:
358:Incidentally
357:
340:
324:
312:
288:
271:
267:
255:
232:
220:
208:
196:
183:
171:
147:
122:
45:
43:
31:
28:
656:) has made
362:John H. Cox
209:Strong keep
713:User:Stlom
293:notability
260:Bensmith53
531:RGTraynor
444:Weak Keep
364:article?
686:Redirect
631:unsigned
598:Redirect
520:a blog,
497:Scienter
473:redirect
452:Scienter
412:Mikesmth
247:Tyrenius
225:Blaxthos
148:Comment:
129:unsigned
115:View log
50:utcursch
674:Nhprman
669:Comment
565:WP:SOAP
489:Comment
423:Comment
396:Comment
380:Nhprman
346:Nhprman
341:Comment
325:Comment
189:Nhprman
156:WP:SOAP
88:protect
83:history
584:Delete
576:(talk)
569:WP:BIO
561:Delete
545:Pious7
509:Delete
493:Katr67
477:Katr67
432:Katr67
366:Djma12
289:Delete
268:Delete
256:Delete
233:Delete
221:Delete
197:Delete
184:Delete
172:Delete
164:Djma12
152:WP:BIO
92:delete
46:Delete
696:. I
279:Help!
237:Zedco
176:Sesel
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
694:Lyrl
692:per
654:talk
639:talk
624:Keep
611:Lyrl
550:Talk
462:Keep
448:Pete
446:per
329:Pete
213:Pete
137:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
54:talk
688:to
606:not
600:to
589:DGG
526:not
522:not
517:not
273:Guy
201:Yaf
162:.
113:– (
698:do
648:—
641:)
139:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
52:|
652:(
645:.
637:(
615:C
426:"
313:c
308:/
281:)
277:(
143:.
135:(
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.