Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy C. Strickland

Add links
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 no consensus. — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 17:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy C. Strickland

[edit]
Roy C. Strickland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Subject is not notable per WP:BIO Mwelch 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Subject seems to have two primary claims to notability. Firstly, he ran for Congress as a Republican nominee in 1972. However, he did so in a distict in which it didn't even matter who the Republican nominee was, because the district was drawn so strongly in favor of the Democrat. The Democrat won with almost 70%. Not only did Strickland not win, but he didn't even come in second. So seems to fall short of the politician guidelines in WP:BIO. Secondly, there is this article in BusinessWeek about him. Definitely a quality secondary source. But per WP:BIO, if coverage in a single secondary source is not "substantial", then multiple secondary sources are required. Does the coverage in this article meet the standard of "substantial"? (Note: Strickland is quoted extensively in the Wikipedia entry, but judging by the listed sources, those quotes may simply be from personal e-mail exchanges between Strickland and the creator of the article.) Mwelch 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the subject has only a marginal claim to notability and fails WP:BIO. This article is another production of Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs), who cites himself as a source in the article[1], creating a conflict of interest. The editor has created numerous articles on persons of local notability and some have been deleted, others taken to AFD. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO /Blaxthos 06:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, needs more than running a business and failing to get into Congress to meet WP:BIO. FiggyBee 09:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia is one of the premier places where a lot of people go for elections data and to learn about political figures. Even if this guy didn't win, this was still an important step when talking about how the Republican Party performed in Louisiana and specifically in this seat which would go for the Republican candidate a few years later. Also, the larger page for Gillis Long doesn't include all of the information about his challengers, something which would appear to be very useful to anybody who wanted to know about his actions during campaigning, given that he was a major politial figure in Louisiana's history. [[User:Tommyduva|Tommyduva]
  • Comment. Even if the article is kept, wouldn't most of the info it provides about his actions during campaigning need to be removed as original research? There is no published source for his quotes, just the article creator saying "He said this to me in e-mail." Mwelch 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Mr. Strickland was an early pioneer in the Louisiana GOP resurgence though he later moved to Texas. The article is well-written and has political information about the 1972 congressional election.It shows how Republicans did poorly in many of those races even though Nixon was winning 49 states at the top of the ballot.

````` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs) 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep It has been generally accepted that major party candidates for election to the national legislative body are N. This may sometimes been problematic in the case of nations with multi-party systems, but in the US it is clear that there are two generally accepted ones. (Whether candidates from other parties are N might depend on the votes). That makes only about 500 defeated candidates every two years (actually fewer, many people run more than once) ; it also means that the people who do get that far are among the 1,000 most prominent politicians in the country. I think that is clear and undoubtable notability. Quibbling about the details of a career or how many votes someone got is irrelevant/That's for the election campaign, not for use. WP is indeed one of the places people go to for general information, and this includes politics--certainly it includes national politics. DGG 00:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If that line of reasoning (WP:N is satisfied by being a major party candidate for national legislature) is going to be followed — and, at first consideration, I actually would not have a huge problem with that idea — then the politician guidelines laid out in WP:BIO should reflect that. It shouldn't have to be a matter of you (nor me nor anyone else) in a delete discussion claiming that it's "generally accepted". It should be in the guidelines. I'll see how this debate comes out and if that argument is accepted, I'll bring up the issue on the WP:BIO talk page for a possible change there. Mwelch 20:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In researching the archives of the WP:BIO talk page I found three different occasions on which the issue of whether a losing candidate should automatically qualify for notability was discussed. Two of those three times, it being specifically identified as the losing candidate in a congressional election. All three times, the sentiment expressed was that the losing candidate should not automatically be considered notable. So I'd challenge your assertion that it's "generally accepted that major party candidates for election to the national legislative body are N". That statement does not appear to be true at all. If anything, it appears to be "generally accepted" that if the only claim to notability is being the losing candidate in a congressional election, then they are not N. See also the current deletion nominations of Doug Roulstone and Richard Wright. Mwelch 23:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, to be discussed. and there is better, for we don't need this particular criterion here. DGG 03:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If such sources are found and cited, then fine. But no one has done so (besides the BusinessWeek article, which isn't even about his congressional election) to this point, and I'm not sure I believe there is "no doubt" that multiple, reliable, non-trivial, secondary sources (something about Roy C. Strickland, not just something that shows there was a name of "Roy C. Strickland" on the congressional ballot in 1972) and retrievable for someone who came in third in a virtually uncontested 1972 congressional election. And according to WP:ATT, the burden of proof, with regard to whether there are adequate sources, falls on those who wish to add or retain the article. So far, I don't see any proof of such sources besides that one article. So it still seems to me that as things stand right now, this guy would satisfy WP:N only if we accept the proposition, per DGG, that losing congressional candidates are inherently notable, even in the absence of the availability of those such sources about them. Mwelch 22:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Williams_Hearn -- Here is a defeated congressional candidate with a Wikipedia story, but it is only a stub. The Strickland story is detailed. Does Gloria Williams Hearn have notability other than her losing campaigns for office? Are full articles on Wikipedia judge more strictly than stubs?

Billy Hathorn 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As far as her notability, you're correct. If there isn't any more to her than what that article says now, and no other WP:ATT-acceptable referneces to be found for her, then she's even less notable than Strickland. No argument there. But that doesn't necessarily make Strickland a keep (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS); I'd say it makes hers a candidate for deletion. The discussion as to whether losing congressional candidates should be automatically notable or not is still on-going on the WP:BIO talk page, so I'd hold off on nominating her for deletion pending that outcome. But if the outcome of that is "no, they are not", and if no one can demonstrate further notability for her article either, I'd absolutely say that one should go too. As for judging of full articles vs. stubs, everything that's presented as factual and could be challenged must be so judged. A full article, by its nature, though, has a lot more info in it that needs to be verified by WP:ATT standards. Since a stub doesn't say much, there's not much that might be challenged. A couple of pointers to official election results would provide adequate verification of almost everyting that's in the Hearn stub right now. In Strickland's article, however, there is a great deal of info who's only verification we have is either primary source and/or original research. That's why, even if we decide Strickland's notability as a Republican congressional nominee is sufficent for a keep, I still think the retained article would then need to be significantly gutted unless other independent, secondary sources about Strickland can be found. Mwelch 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Above the special notes about politicians at WP:BIO is the suggested inclusion criterion "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." Strickland would appear to be borderline with respect to this criterion. In fact, the statement in the opening sentence of the article "who was a pioneer in the development of the Republican Party in Louisiana" would seem to be in conflict with Strickland's repeated failure to achieve elected office. If some citation could be found that either indicated that Strickland's "struggle" helped to shape the state party (currently lacking) or if some citation could be found that could insert Strickland into the paragraph at History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party#Realignment:_The_South_becomes_Republican, that would suffice to support retention of the article, I think. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:21, 25 March 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roy_C._Strickland&oldid=1069205048"