Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Murphy (politician)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. `'mikka (t) 18:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mere candidate for House race that does not have own article. See Wikipedia: Candidates and elections. Non-notable in own right. RexRex84 06:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO, and state senators aren't notable in their own right unless they've earned notability somehow. He can come back if he wins. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Sorry, Chris Murphy is notable as a State Senator. He's the Assistant Majority leader of the Connecticut State Senate, the author of the Connecticut civil unions law, the chairman of the Senate Public Health committee (which, if you know anything about Connecticut politics, you'd know is of the two or three most important committees in Hartford). But even if he weren't a State Senator, he'd be notable, because he's the Democratic Party's candidate in one of the fifty most closely watched Congressional races in the country. The WP:BIO guidelines do allow "major local political figures who receive significant press coverage" to receive WP pages, and Murphy, who has twice been featured on the front page of the New York Times certainly and unequivocably qualifies.--Francisx 00:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: fails WP:BIO. Suggest transwiki to Wikia:Campaigns. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri @ 10:49, July 8, 2006
- Keep: If I read this correctly, it indicates that candidates can have their own entry if there is enough pertinent information, and this page indicates that current members of a state legislature can have their own entry. Murphy has been in the news a lot in Connecticut; just do a search on Google News. In addition, the race is expected to be much closer than the average House race, making this especially notable. I don't know why there's no page on the race itself, but someone is free to create one. If he loses I can see the justification for removing the article, but not now. Frankg 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Funny how people who cite Wikipedia:Candidates and elections keep missing (or choosing to ignore?) the part: "articles on elections should be written before articles on individual candidates." Fan-1967 16:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, if you think we need an article on the election itself, create one. I think it's more constructive than deleting articles. But people coming to Wikipedia looking for information on the race will likely be searching for candidates' names, rather than the abstract concept of the election. Furthermore, I notice that the policy about candidates and elections is still under debate, and in that debate there is support for articles on candidates for offices such as this. Frankg 16:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a voters guide, and most certainly is not free webspace for candidates. (BTW, the vast majority of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are under debate.) Fan-1967 16:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But Wikipedia is a place people go when they want to find (hopefully!) unbiased information on a subject all summarized in one place. Either way, I don't see why this article fails the (more established?) notability guidelines. Frankg 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a voters guide, and most certainly is not free webspace for candidates. (BTW, the vast majority of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are under debate.) Fan-1967 16:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell. This is a deleted article on another CT House race candidate. This is the 2nd time this person ran and the race is closer than the Murphy-Johnson race in CT's 5th District.
- Farrell was never a state legislator, though, at least not to my knowledge. (Man, sure wish I could look this up on Wikipedia. ;) ) I don't really think her article should have been deleted either. Compromise suggestion: We remove this article but create an article for this race, and redirect searches for Chris Murphy to that page. What do you think? Frankg 19:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a sitting state legislator. --DarkAudit 20:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep You can't seriously believe that a three-term State Senator, the chairman of the Connecticut Senate's Public Health Committee, the author of CT's civil unions law, and one of the more prominent politicians in the state is not prominent enough for a Wikipedia entry. The guidelines cited are proposed, not active, and anyway would not affect Chris Murphy who is a prominent elected politican. This RFD seems like a partisan attempt to include only one candidate in the upcoming House race, which is non-neutral and contrary to the NPOV purpose of WP.--Francisx 22:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not so. Most of the editors come from way outside the district in question, and have no interest whatsoever in this campaign. What is objected to is the blatant posting of campaign materials for the candidate and calling it an article. In other cases, the article ends up as only a sentence or two saying the subject is a candidate, nothing more. Neither applies here. --DarkAudit 23:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you feel that the article is insufficiently NPOV, then by all means, submit your suggestions and edit the article to make it so. But if Sen. Chris Murphy, of all people, isn't sufficiently notable, then neither are all but a relative handful of the biographical entries on WP. This is a powerful, prominent figure, and excluding him simply because he's a candidate for higher office seems silly and contrary to the purpose of WP.--Francisx 00:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually I only included this article for deletion in response to the deletion of the Diane Farrell article (see link to discussion above). I supported keeping that article of a democratic candidate. I am only trying to be consistent. Plus Murphy's opponent deserves a page as a sitting congresswoman. Moreover, Murphy really is a minor CT politician (being from CT I know this). Nevertheless, I think an article on the race itself is warranted.--RexRex84 23:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not so. Most of the editors come from way outside the district in question, and have no interest whatsoever in this campaign. What is objected to is the blatant posting of campaign materials for the candidate and calling it an article. In other cases, the article ends up as only a sentence or two saying the subject is a candidate, nothing more. Neither applies here. --DarkAudit 23:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe deletion of the Diane Farrell article was a travesty -- 'Diane Farrell' gets 4.7 million Google hits, 118 current Google news articles, has raised more money than the vast majority of sitting members of Congress, and is perhaps the most prominent Congressional challenger anywhere in the country. If new or proposed WP standards don't count her -- or Chris Murphy (who dispite what you say is one of the most powerful members of the State Senate) -- as sufficiently prominent people, then it is those standards that are lacking. Excluding biographies of prominent politicians would place a chilling effect on the amount of useful information available on WP. It also has the perhaps-unintended effect of editorializing in favor of incumbent politicians at the expense of their often equally notable challengers. We may not need WP pages on every single person who has ever run for elective office, but Diane Farrell and Chris Murphy are serious, well regarded politicians who have each raised millions of dollars, and who's names are justifiably familiar to the majority of residents of Connecticut. Keep the bios non-partisan, but don't remove someone's bio just because they're a politician.--Francisx 00:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Diane Farrell article was merely 'candidate and member of town council'. If she had raised millions of dollars and had statewide notice, it wasn't in the article. Just being a candidate isn't enough to warrant an article, and Diane's article was just her being a candidate. --DarkAudit 14:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ok. Well, if I wrote a bio for Diane Farrell that mentioned more than her just being a candidate, could I post it? I'm hesistant to undelete this, but she is clearly an important and notable person, even if her past WP article was lacking. --Francisx 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Diane Farrell article was merely 'candidate and member of town council'. If she had raised millions of dollars and had statewide notice, it wasn't in the article. Just being a candidate isn't enough to warrant an article, and Diane's article was just her being a candidate. --DarkAudit 14:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe deletion of the Diane Farrell article was a travesty -- 'Diane Farrell' gets 4.7 million Google hits, 118 current Google news articles, has raised more money than the vast majority of sitting members of Congress, and is perhaps the most prominent Congressional challenger anywhere in the country. If new or proposed WP standards don't count her -- or Chris Murphy (who dispite what you say is one of the most powerful members of the State Senate) -- as sufficiently prominent people, then it is those standards that are lacking. Excluding biographies of prominent politicians would place a chilling effect on the amount of useful information available on WP. It also has the perhaps-unintended effect of editorializing in favor of incumbent politicians at the expense of their often equally notable challengers. We may not need WP pages on every single person who has ever run for elective office, but Diane Farrell and Chris Murphy are serious, well regarded politicians who have each raised millions of dollars, and who's names are justifiably familiar to the majority of residents of Connecticut. Keep the bios non-partisan, but don't remove someone's bio just because they're a politician.--Francisx 00:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BIO: Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. Captainktainer * Talk 00:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BIO as a member of state or provincial legislature. Also, clear case of WP:POINT as noted in other debates. Capitalistroadster 04:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because he's a sitting state senator -- Mwalcoff 05:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 12:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Why do people keep citing a proposed wikipedia policy (I refer to Wikipedia:Candidates and elections) as if it had already been fully agreed to and implemented? John Broughton 22:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: is it just my perception, or are almost all of the proposed deletions of articles about Congressional candidates in fact about deleting Democrats?? John Broughton 23:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, it's part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that is Wikipedia -- at least this week. Previously, it's been the cabal suppressing
crankalternative physics, white power, the truth about 9/11, Islamophobia, Islam, Evangelical Christians, Zionism, Biblical truths, and perpetual motion machines; and acting as a mouthpiece for Ayn Rand, Polish nationalists, Romanians, Freemasons, Islamophobics, Islamists, Evangelical Christians, and Zionists. They're still working on the schedule next quarter for the Catholics, Canadians, and Reptilian Baby-Eaters from Outer Space, and when exactly Wikipedia will suppressing them and when they'll be the acting as the propaganda mouthpiece for them. So, any other questions? --Calton | Talk 00:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]- No, no other questions, since you didn't answer my original one. All it would take is a couple of specifics - a few Republican nominees that were deleted. Or do you think that sarcasm suffices? John Broughton 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, since that went over your head, let's try again: you're being a paranoid axe-grinder -- far from the first and sadly far from the last -- making up evidence-free self-serving nonsense. Was that clear enough for you? If you're going to try to dish out vague smears, try offering up something other than passive-aggressive "prove me wrong" smirking. Your made the charges, so you come up with the evidence. --Calton | Talk 06:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you have violated the Wikipedia:Civility policy. John Broughton 13:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, since that went over your head, let's try again: you're being a paranoid axe-grinder -- far from the first and sadly far from the last -- making up evidence-free self-serving nonsense. Was that clear enough for you? If you're going to try to dish out vague smears, try offering up something other than passive-aggressive "prove me wrong" smirking. Your made the charges, so you come up with the evidence. --Calton | Talk 06:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no other questions, since you didn't answer my original one. All it would take is a couple of specifics - a few Republican nominees that were deleted. Or do you think that sarcasm suffices? John Broughton 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, it's part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that is Wikipedia -- at least this week. Previously, it's been the cabal suppressing
- Comment: is it just my perception, or are almost all of the proposed deletions of articles about Congressional candidates in fact about deleting Democrats?? John Broughton 23:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep he is a sitting State Senator and the Democratic candidate in a very compeditive race, he is not just a long shot candidate or primary hopeful.--Tdl1060 22:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and write article on the race if it is indeed a battleground race according to the claim ("According to a recent New York Times article, Johnson's district, Connecticut's fifth, is being targeted by Democrats who want to eliminate Republicans from the traditionally liberal Northeast.") Also, remove or cite some commentary from the article (e.g. "has a good chance of winning"). KWH 15:12, 13 July 2006 (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.