Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John B. Kimble (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:48, 13 February 2013

John B. Kimble

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}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With respect, being a candidate for office and holding no other offices makes me think this gentleman doesn't meet the notability guidelines. I see that he has had 2 prior afds (1 delete in 2007, 1 no consensus after a new article was created in 2011), but I don't even think that the 'perpetual also-ran' angle is sufficient in this case (would need to be many more attempts, IMO). Syrthiss (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN ukexpat (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been on Wikipedia for many times and the individual is a notable individual who has been in newspapers worldwide and has been stated as a "notable person" many times previously. There is no reason to remove an article that gains at least 400 views per thirty day time period. There is no reason to remove the article and because of his "Playgirl" and "New York Times" coverage as well as "The Daily Show" coverage the individual has clearly met notability standards under the Wikipedia guidelines. The article is also noteworthy as a"person" and not only as a politician who is a "perpetual candidate". The man is notable and the article has been on Wikipedia since 2007 and not just 2011 as stated above. The article should be kept as informational and notable. It does also seem that some of the same names are not only on this debate but on the previous debate from 2011 and seems suspect. I agree that the article subject does meet the general notability guidelines and is noteworthy. this text was added previously by junglejamm below, and unsigned. Syrthiss (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Meets notability standards

68.50.111.217 (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC) 68.50.111.217 (talk)— 68.50.111.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This article meets the general notability guidelines and is "newsworthy" because of the subjects many "antics" or stunts trying to win public office. There is no question that the individual is newsworthy and that the same arguments were made in the previous afd pages which resulted in no concensus. Thus , unless there is new substantial argument the result will probably be the same and the article should not be removed/deleted.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclops2007 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — Cyclops2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 22:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there was more discussion of the "antics" made by the individual, or if there were more "in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists" about the "antics," then this could pass the general notoriety criteria. As is, the news articles seem trivial, or campaign related, rather than about the subject. Enos733 (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reviewing the 2011 deletion debate and the 2007 debate it does seem that the subject is newsworthy. In 1996 he said he would pose for Playgirl and there are many news accounts worldwide that mention this. Then we look at the most newsworthy events and those were in 2002 when he had the opponent's wife as his campaign manager. This went viral from what I have seen on the 2011 debate and in the news articles I have found. He may be considered a perennial candidate but he is covered each and every time he runs for office and is listed as a scientist first in the article with the campaign events/publicity stunts covered in England as well as the United States major news outlets. The subject seems to be newsworthy and meets the general guidelines or notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junglejamm (talk • contribs) 18:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — Junglejamm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note the keep !votes above smell strongly of sock- or meatpuppetry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ From what I have read and reviewed by looking at the 2011 deletion review is that the article was about a newsworthy person who made splashes in the news. What I see in some of the "delete" votes are some of the same people who voted in the 2011 participation and seem to be in unison with their motivation in this discussion to intentionally delete a noteworthy subject. I believe that any man that has his opponent's wife as his campaign manager is "newsworthy" and notable. The previous arguments from 2011 should be included as arguments for inclusion or deletion. But in all honesty I believe the article meets the general notability guidelines.68.50.111.217 (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC) 68.50.111.217 (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? How in the World does this compute; I believe that any man that has his opponent's wife as his campaign manager is "newsworthy" and notable.? However, it takes a brave man to do such, and that he survived those events may indeed be! Яεñ99 (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting view I see your point of view. the individual did survive and that is in itself "newsworthy". lol I commend him on his bravery or foolishness. 68.50.111.217 (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After looking at the news articles under google and viewing the 2011 review it appears that the subject is newsworthy and should be retained. 68.54.86.51 (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note I've heavily discounted the masses of keep votes as being sock/meatpuppetry. However there isn't enough legitimate participation to take action on it either way, so I've relisted. NativeForeigner ^Talk 12:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Covered in the news, but that is insufficient for notability. Looking at the results, Kimble hasn't been close to achieving public office (15% of the vote). In the lopsided contested, there is often no contest for the nomination of the party (or parties) that is clearly going to lose. If someone wants to toss their hat in the ring, that person will be nominated as the only candidate. To achieve notability as a politician, one needs to have done something more than sign up for a race that one is clearly going to lose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I have read and reread the arguments fom 2011 and even 2007 and the article was not new in 2011 and had been on Wikipedia for a number of years drawing hundreds of views a month. The subject was in the New York Times and on Hard Copy, Today and the Daily Show and on the BBC etc and the only sock puppetry seems to be inane argument trying to get people to say delete the article. I find the google news search to be very informative and maybe the individual will win office some time. Continuing to relist the argument is really pushing te limits of decency and fairness.Junglejamm (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC) user was blocked as a sock puppet Syrthiss (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 <hr style="width:55%;" />
-*<s>'''Keep'''</s>  From what I have read and reviewed by looking at the 2011 deletion review is that the article was about a newsworthy person who made splashes in the news. What I see in some of the "delete" votes are some of the same people who voted in the 2011 participation and seem to be in unison with their motivation in this discussion to intentionally delete a noteworthy subject. I believe that any man that has his opponent's wife as his campaign manager is "newsworthy" and notable. [[Special:Contributions/68.50.111.217|68.50.111.217]] ([[User talk:68.50.111.217|talk]]) 04:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
+*<s>'''Keep'''</s>  From what I have read and reviewed by looking at the 2011 deletion review is that the article was about a newsworthy person who made splashes in the news. What I see in some of the "delete" votes are some of the same people who voted in the 2011 participation and seem to be in unison with their motivation in this discussion to intentionally delete a noteworthy subject. I believe that any man that has his opponent's wife as his campaign manager is "newsworthy" and notable. The previous arguments from 2011 should be included as arguments for inclusion or deletion. But in all honesty I believe the article meets the general notability guidelines.[[Special:Contributions/68.50.111.217|68.50.111.217]] ([[User talk:68.50.111.217|talk]]) 03:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)  [[Special:Contributions/68.50.111.217|68.50.111.217]] ([[User talk:68.50.111.217|talk]]) 04:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 :*'''Wha?''' How in the World does this compute; ''I believe that any man that has his opponent's wife as his campaign manager is "newsworthy" and notable.''?  However, it takes a brave man to do such, and that he survived those events may indeed be! [[User:Ren99|Яεñ99]] ([[User talk:Ren99|talk]]) 05:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 *'''Interesting view''' I see your point of view. the individual did survive and that is in itself "newsworthy". lol I commend him on his bravery or foolishness. [[Special:Contributions/68.50.111.217|68.50.111.217]] ([[User talk:68.50.111.217|talk]]) 05:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)