Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Alexander (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 conditional keep, if no reliable sources are added within a reasonable amount of time, you may nominate this article for deletion again. 山本一郎 (会話) 04:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Alexander (politician)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Fails BLP, N, V, and appears to be OR. Article has had time to gain notability and proper referencing for living bio. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Cloudz679 (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I agree that Delete sounds like the proper course of action. However I think it would be best if time was allowed for major conributors or the articles creater to edit the page. A simple google search brings up several things like votebrianmoore.com which mentions Alexander as a vice president nominee, however most sources I looked at weren't what I would call reliable sources. -Jahnx (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not sure that WP:OR or WP:V applies in this case. However, WP:BIO#POLITICIANS with the lack of any reference to any of the WP:BIO general criteria should be sufficient for a deletion. Mstuczynski (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:BIO states in the category that includes politicians: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included." So that would be bad analysis. KV(Talk) 20:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Do I have to go through this every time a politician comes up for AfD? There is no claim to notability in the article that qualifies under BIO general criteria. His "claim" to notability would thus fall under BIO#POLITICIANS and he fails to meet any of those criteria. Mstuczynski (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - As soon as I finish his biography, it will be seen that he is more notable. The provision also has a clear intent to keep out candidates in local and minor figures in statewide elections. There is precedent from various minor party presidential and vice presidential figures having pages, with less citation than is on there now. I think it is clear that the article needs to be worked on, but deletion is unneccessary and was brought up before discussion was brought up on the talk page which is just bad Wikiquette. KV(Talk) 21:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX to that. Show BIO criteria and I will be happy to change my opinion. You have plenty of time before the AfD closes, and I have this on my watchlist. Mstuczynski (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - That is an essay, not policy, and I still think precedent is important in this matter. I'm also not basing my argument completely upon this. I am, however, bringing it up as a point because the Wikipedia community has established standards through precedent, often exercised as "common law," which is more or less the basis of all Wikipedia policy. In that light, I think WP:IAR very well may be applicable in this situation. KV(Talk) 21:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The major contributor stopped short of citations, and bios of people living need proper sourcing. It looks more like a fan page seeing as the creator is a member of the same political party, and supporter. We see this way too often ;p SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. there will certainly be sources. I dont see that the contributors coi makes it unsuitable. DGG (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and work on the thing. He is too notable as is to simply delete. And it does not technically fail any of those things.KV(Talk) 18:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This seems like a personal conflict in violation of WP:POINT. The article may need work, but that's no reason to delete it outright. Jeffreyely (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't look at it like that before, but it does seem that this AFD could be seen as a violation of WP:POINT by SynergeticMaggot. I added a quote to his talk page as per a discussion we had when I helped him regain internet access. His response was to state he would take retalliation. He then created this AfD and of course knew that was of interest in the article showing that he clearly understood this as an attack against me. His POINT, applying to WP:POINT would be that he has some sort of perverted power. This isn't the first such application of WP:POINT between he and I in this regard, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hermetism and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hermeticism_and_other_thought_systems for similar issues where he had worked with User:999 and User:Hanuman_Das, both of which have been banned for sockpuppetry (or so he has told me). KV(Talk) 20:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Allow expanding and sourcing the article instead of deleting. He is known to tens of thousands of people, the article barely scratches the surface of his life and accomplishments. As for the claim that it is a fan site, if that were the case I think it would show a clear bias. As it now stands, it is a short bio. Allow for expanding and sourcing in a timely manner.--Red-epochalypse (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)— Red-epochalypse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.212.50.198 (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC) — 141.212.50.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per DGG and King Vegita. --Oldak Quill 20:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - <This makes no sense at all. Stewart Alexander is the current vice presidential candidate of a national FEC-recognized party who will appear on ballots across the country. His information is all over the internet, including the Socialist Party USA website (www.sp-usa.org, the SP Campaign Clearinghouse Website (votesocialist.org) and a new website for the Moore-Alexander campaign is currently being created by the SP at (socialist2008.org. Even every past SP Vice Presidential candidate has a wikipedia article. How could one justify deleting the article on the current vice presidential candidate?> 99.149.249.213 (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Matt[reply]
Keep per 99.149.249.213, and cleanup. There are enough third-party sources out there, as mentioned above, but the recent expansion relies too much on Alexander's autobiography at stewartalexandercares.com for me to be happy with it. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I meant to add all this today, but you beat me to it. Mstuczynski (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related Discussion

Do not comment here, this section is for related discussion that was not placed on the AfD page so as to give a fuller picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Vegita (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Alexander (politician)

This discussion is from User_talk:Mstuczynski

I added OR and V to the nomination because its suspect since the creator has a personal bias toward the rticle in question. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The web site in question does not constitute as a reliable second party source (secondary source). Especially since there are topics on the page that do not discuss his political carrer. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It confirms the first sentence of the article. The rest is about his life, and unverifiable. This is the difficulty in creating biographies while the person is living. If you dont wish to respond, you dont have to. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stewart Alexander (politician)

This is from User_talk:SynergeticMaggot

While I sympathise with your position on this matter, this article is properly referenced by reliable sources e.g. Socialist Party USA website and is thus neither OR nor unverifiable. Mstuczynski (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why I am responding, but the article claims he is the Socialist Party USA V.P. candidate and their website confirms it. I do not know why that is not a reliable source. Mstuczynski (talk) 10:42, 8 March 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.