482:
discussion. Mr. Startin is, IMO, just above the cutoff for notability. He's known in Idaho (former pres. of the state's Young
Democrats and on the Idaho State Democratic Committee) and in Nevada, as a candidate and a published author of a biography of a native Nevadan. He's received coverage in real newspapers and has indeed been a candidate from a minor, but well-known, party (The Green Party isn't of his own invention) and is known as a candidate and political figure in two states. "National notoriety" isn't demanded here, though I suspect it's being used as a de facto criteria. -
358:
these essays to articles, and I think in this case, given that he's been a candidate before, will be again, and is getting news coverage (though obviously not the New York Times, which wouldn't cover a race for governor anyway) that this is one of those "exceptions" times we should use some common sense in applying the notability standard. The fact that he's been given a platform in a local paper to write an article isn't a downside, either, IMO. It actually goes to his notability as a past/future candidate. -
139:. Only assertions of notability are 1) author of one book with an unknown press, 2) failed bid for U.S. House seat, and 3) controversy arising from position on Iraq war; article seems like a vanity page. No evidence that book is important. Failed election on third-party ticket does not establish notability. No third-party coverage of his "controversial" position, or evidence that anyone even noticed.
437:: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules." (my bolding.) Many users here are eager to rigidly enforce guidelines with far more rigor than ever intended. Throwing a bunch of guidelines up against the wall is a rather lawyerly tactic for self-professed non-wikilawyer. Suffice it to say it's absurd to say this is nonsense, to accuse the creator of gaming the system is not
420:
The quote about common sense and exceptions wasn't original to me. I quoted it from WP:BIO (the first line of the second paragraph.) Guidelines are NOT Policies, and frankly, shouldn't be quoted here on AfD's as if from a law book or from
Scripture, as if it somehow "settles" issues. Guidelines are
357:
While I understand the notability guideline's concern, note that it also says at WP:N that notability is "a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." This is something many people forget when rigidly applying
441:
nor is it proper etiquette, it's hardly making a "point" and is clearly not a hoax, since this is a real person who has garnered real, realiable media coverage. The accusation of COI is unproven, though it was alleged. In the end, is the candidate "notable"? It's not a slam dunk, I admit. But then
481:
The language in the WP:BIO guideline (and elsewhere) urging "common sense and the occassional exception" was put into the guideline by consensus. But when I read (in effect) "Violates WP:BIO. End of discussion" that's a WikiFundamentalism that quotes the guidelines as if they are scripture, not a
463:, and the other guidelines I mentioned. The rationale for considering something to be an exception to the guideline should not repudiate the guideline: there should still be something left to apply in ordinary cases, otherwise you're not even taking it as generally good advice.
471:
that people whose only claim to fame is political candidacy are not notable. Startin is precisely the sort of person this guideline was intended to cover. If you want candidates to be notable, try to get the consensus changed.
403:). So far from being an exception that has somehow slipped through the cracks of Knowledge (XXG) policy and guideline so as to technically fail them while nonetheless being notable, this is a textbook case of non-notability.
347:
is explicit that candidacy does not suffice for notability; this would seem to speak more heavily against someone whose campaign has not yet officially begun, but is instead still in the stages of an exploratory committee.
442:
again, notability doesn't mean nationally/internationally known, nor is it fame or "notoriety" nor "published a lot on the
Internet," which are criteria sometimes applied by Wikipedians, unjustifiably, IMO. -
455:
is just a guideline, and so we shouldn't feel bound to apply it rigorously" (we delete a lot of pages on April 1, making no exception for how funny they are). The same goes for
572:
124:
543:
630:
371:
is a guideline, not an essay. Nor are guidelines to be ignored in the name of "common sense" and the possibility of "exceptions": other mere "guidelines" include
601:
304:- I don't share this person's politics, but he has actually begun an exploratory committee for governor, and *has* received coverage in a real newspaper.
399:. The difference between a guideline and a policy involves the number of exceptions that might be imagined and the procedures for changing it (see
233:
275:
422:
400:
91:
86:
95:
17:
211:
78:
236:, but nothing substantial enough to meet guideline requirements (the sources are mainly listings of potential candidates).--
232:, Startin might be in a public office in the future, but until then, he's not notable enough to merit an article. Found a
684:
343:
I'm not sure the last of those counts as independent media coverage, seeing as it was written by
Startin himself. And
36:
239:
451:
I'm sorry if you took those to be accusations: I meant them as examples. My point was that no one would say, "but,
271:
683:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
662:
305:
666:
648:
619:
590:
561:
531:
519:
486:
476:
446:
415:
362:
352:
338:
315:
296:
279:
256:
215:
191:
182:
163:
143:
60:
464:
344:
199:
82:
658:
468:
643:
614:
585:
556:
207:
178:
384:
380:
376:
515:
292:
267:
74:
66:
408:
334:
321:
158:
421:
to be used with common sense and yes, with exceptions when warranted. The very link you quoted on
392:
325:
323:
327:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
460:
456:
452:
425:
states: "Policies are considered a standard that all users should follow, whereas guidelines
396:
388:
229:
637:
608:
579:
550:
404:
203:
174:
507:
438:
372:
368:
136:
511:
288:
330:
51:
132:
244:
528:
483:
443:
359:
312:
112:
152:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
527:"This notability guideline for biographies is not policy," quote from WP:BIO. -
196:
I just think it is a pretty OK article, and not something to delete... Shvop!
311:
notability on him, although clearly he isn't a political superstar yet. -
473:
412:
349:
188:
140:
266:
Notice the COI- there is a notable wikipedian tag on the talk page.
287:, nothing in the article is an actual achievement of notability.
677:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
119:
108:
104:
100:
157:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
687:). No further edits should be made to this page.
573:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
411:and still be notable: W. Lane Startin cannot.
8:
544:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
631:list of Nevada-related deletion discussions
602:list of Idaho-related deletion discussions
629:: This debate has been included in the
600:: This debate has been included in the
571:: This debate has been included in the
542:: This debate has been included in the
329:, but I'll otherwise keep out of this --
401:Knowledge (XXG):Policies and Guidelines
230:Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
657:per various comments above. -
307:. That should actually confer
1:
253:(aka Tree Biting Conspiracy)
433:need to be approached with
704:
667:19:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
649:20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
620:20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
591:20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
562:20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
532:15:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
520:15:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
487:17:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
477:16:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
447:19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
416:18:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
363:14:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
61:17:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
680:Please do not modify it.
353:23:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
339:23:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
316:18:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
297:11:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
280:04:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
257:03:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
216:01:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
192:01:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
183:01:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
164:00:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
144:17:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
423:policies and guidelines
367:Not to wikilawyer, but
409:perennial candidate
320:There's also these
187:Is there a reason?
44:The result was
651:
634:
622:
605:
593:
576:
564:
547:
427:are more advisory
254:
218:
202:comment added by
166:
59:
695:
682:
659:House of Scandal
646:
640:
635:
625:
617:
611:
606:
596:
588:
582:
577:
567:
559:
553:
548:
538:
405:Lyndon La Rouche
252:
247:
242:
197:
161:
156:
154:
122:
116:
98:
58:
56:
49:
34:
703:
702:
698:
697:
696:
694:
693:
692:
691:
685:deletion review
678:
644:
638:
615:
609:
586:
580:
557:
551:
268:JeremyMcCracken
245:
240:
159:
150:
118:
89:
75:W. Lane Startin
73:
70:
67:W. Lane Startin
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
701:
699:
690:
689:
672:
670:
669:
652:
623:
594:
565:
536:
535:
534:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
318:
299:
282:
260:
259:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
168:
167:
155:
147:
129:
128:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
700:
688:
686:
681:
675:
674:
673:
668:
664:
660:
656:
653:
650:
647:
641:
632:
628:
624:
621:
618:
612:
603:
599:
595:
592:
589:
583:
574:
570:
566:
563:
560:
554:
545:
541:
537:
533:
530:
526:
523:
522:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
502:
488:
485:
480:
479:
478:
475:
470:
466:
465:WP:POLITICIAN
462:
458:
454:
450:
449:
448:
445:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
419:
418:
417:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
365:
364:
361:
356:
355:
354:
351:
346:
345:WP:POLITICIAN
342:
341:
340:
336:
332:
328:
326:
324:
322:
319:
317:
314:
310:
306:
303:
300:
298:
294:
290:
286:
283:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
262:
261:
258:
255:
250:
249:
248:
243:
235:
231:
227:
224:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
195:
194:
193:
190:
186:
185:
184:
180:
176:
173:
170:
169:
165:
162:
153:
149:
148:
146:
145:
142:
138:
134:
126:
121:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
57:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
679:
676:
671:
654:
626:
597:
568:
539:
524:
503:
435:common sense
434:
430:
426:
308:
301:
284:
263:
251:
238:
237:
225:
171:
151:
130:
53:
45:
43:
31:
28:
639:Fabrictramp
610:Fabrictramp
581:Fabrictramp
552:Fabrictramp
467:reflects a
429:in nature.
385:WP:RELIABLE
381:WP:NONSENSE
377:WP:NOHOAXES
234:few sources
204:AlwaysOnion
198:—Preceding
175:AlwaysOnion
645:talk to me
616:talk to me
587:talk to me
558:talk to me
512:Ecoleetage
289:NawlinWiki
54:Sandstein
469:consensus
407:can be a
331:Faustus37
172:Weak Keep
160:Skomorokh
393:WP:POINT
276:contribs
212:contribs
200:unsigned
125:View log
529:Nhprman
525:Comment
484:Nhprman
461:WP:GAME
457:WP:ETIQ
453:WP:HOAX
444:Nhprman
397:WP:GAME
389:WP:ETIQ
360:Nhprman
313:Nhprman
302:Comment
264:Comment
92:protect
87:history
655:Delete
508:WP:BIO
506:Fails
504:Delete
439:WP:AGF
395:, and
373:WP:COI
369:WP:BIO
285:Delete
226:Delete
137:WP:BIO
131:Fails
120:delete
96:delete
46:delete
241:t b c
123:) – (
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
663:talk
627:Note
598:Note
569:Note
540:Note
516:talk
431:Both
335:talk
309:some
293:talk
272:talk
246:♣§♠
208:talk
179:talk
135:per
133:WP:N
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
636:--
633:.
607:--
604:.
578:--
575:.
549:--
546:.
474:RJC
413:RJC
350:RJC
274:) (
189:RJC
141:RJC
665:)
642:|
613:|
584:|
555:|
518:)
510:.
459:,
391:,
387:,
383:,
379:,
375:,
337:)
295:)
278:)
228:.
214:)
210:•
181:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
48:.
661:(
514:(
333:(
291:(
270:(
206:(
177:(
127:)
117:(
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.