Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Stevens (politician)

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 Keep.. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Stevens (politician)

This individual appears to be totally non-notable and fails WP:BIO. Anyone can run for President. this fellow is on the ballot in only two states and there is no clear evidence of his notability. In lieu of significant third party coverage, subject does not appear to be notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 21:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP You know, if you are running for president and manage to get on the ballot of ONE state, that seems notable enough. This isn't about "city council", and getting listed on the ballot of even a single state requires a fair number of signatures. My guess is that sources can be found, since he has been on 200 talk shows. Article needs work and sources, NO DOUBT, but by your own admission, two states put him on the ballot, which guarantees coverage. Besides, in spite of what people tell you, the US is supposed to be a MULTIPARTY nation, not a two party nation. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Without sources we have absolutely no idea that he did appear on 200 talk shows, or what those talk shows are, or whether they are notable. In addition, he fails the "thomas+*+stevens"+objectivist&btnG=Search&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8| Google "thomas+*+stevens"+objectivist&btnG=Search+New| News "thomas+stevens"+objectivist&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ie=UTF-8| test. Regardless of what America is supposed to be, Wikipedia needs evidence of notability--and he does not have it. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few sources On ballot in Colorado and Florida. (several sources for that)

[1] hes being parodied.

[2] This same article was picked up by several TV stations, btw.

[3] Also in the Party article

And a whole host of marginal stuff. What it boils down to is this: Is getting on the ballot in two states notable? I say yes, and this fact is verified by reliable sources, and is even stated in the Wikipedia article on the Objectivist Party. Everything else is just tagged and fixed. Deletion policy cover if the notability CAN BE verified, not IF it is verified. Put a {{FACT}} tag on the 200 interviews (likely local radio) or change to "the party claims he has been on 200 shows" to be more accurate. Or delete that sentence. Or take to that talk page. The question HERE is: Is he notable? On this, he passes if for no other reason than he is on the ballot of two states. That his party is small isn't the criteria. I am confident the nom is in good faith, I just think you may have set the bar way too high. Wikipedia isn't paper, and getting on two ballots isn't trivial. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Sure anybody can run for president... but by starting one's own political party? As bizarre as this seems, he qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN: [4], [5], [6], [7], Formed a political party: Objectivist Party. Is getting coverage of sorts... [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].... et al. Bizarre. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any presidential candidate who appears on the ballot (in any state) is per se notable. Kestenbaum (talk) 04:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's kind of strange that Google News didn't turn up any of those sources (although many of them seem to be saying little more than that he exists). Does anyone know why this might be? Anyway, I'll look through them tomorrow, however it seems like a lot of the sources may not be quite strong enough to stand on their own (I don't think Diana Hsieh's is a good one, since she is absolutely not neutral, for instance). TallNapoleon (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.