Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Kerns

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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Kerns

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

This is a candidate for political office without significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. Does not meet WP:NPOL, the notability guidelines for politicians. Whpq (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he has not held any significant offices per WP:NPOL. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and no other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An as yet unelected candidate in a future election does not get a Wikipedia article just for the fact of being a candidate, in and of itself — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he already got over a Wikipedia inclusion criterion for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to attain notability from the election itself. No prejudice against recreation in November 2018 if he wins, but this article neither states nor sources anything that gets him an article today. Also there's a direct conflict of interest here, as the creator's Wikipedia username corresponds directly to the first initial and surname of a person whose Twitter account identifies him as an intern in Kerns' campaign office. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First off, what is the hurt of having Dale Kerns' Wikipedia page live? As far as I see it, you're limiting some voters choices because many use Wikipedia as a reliable voice. However, deleting a growing party's candidate does nothing but continue a broken two-party U.S. electoral system. You're putting blinders over the eyes of Pennsylvanians all over the commonwealth. I have no respect for anyone who thinks a candidate donating real time, effort and money into a campaign isn't "notable" enough. If this page is deleted by you folks, it'll show just how free our speech and press truly is in the 21st century. All voices should be heard. Also, I may intern under Mr. Kerns but in no way made this biography biased. It merely presents facts, which subsequently are being considered for deletion with no good reasoning backing it up. JCinello (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JCinello - Wikipedia is not a free webhost or blog. Nor is Wikipedia a soapbox for political causes It's not our obligation to help you end what you see as a "broken two-party system". The free speech argument is ridiculous and a strawman. Take a look at WP:FREE which states "in the United States you have the right to speak your mind (with certain narrow exclusions) on a street corner, at a town council meeting, or in a letter to your elected representatives. But you have no "right" to express yourself at will in someone else's home, to demand that a private newspaper publish your thoughts, or to insist that Wikipedia carry what you write—even if it's "the truth". I'm sure we'll cope with your lack of respect for us and out quality control measures. Please see WP:NPOL and WP:GNG for the policies that demonstrate clearly why Kerns is not notable. Finally, writing about something with which you have a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged. AusLondonder (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, Wikipedia is not "the press", and having an article on here has nothing to do with "free speech" or the lack thereof. Our inclusion criteria are not governed by anyone's sense of personal entitlement, or by any sort of "equal time for all candidates in any election" rule — we're governed by the requirement that reliable source coverage verifies passage of a specific notability criterion which satisfies the will people still need this information ten years from now test. All of which mean that people get articles on here by holding office, not just by running for it. And having or not having a Wikipedia article does not affect a candidate's chances of winning or losing the election, either — the number of new articles that we invariably have to create after an election takes place plainly demonstrates that having a Wikipedia article is not a precondition of winning an election, and furthermore many of those people who didn't already have an article before the election successfully defeated someone who did. People have a lot of sources of information from which to decide who to vote for in an election — their local newspaper, their local TV and radio stations, the candidate's own campaign website, attending live debates and campaign events, and on and so forth — and they most certainly do not depend exclusively or even primarily on Wikipedia for that purpose. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Kerns gets significant coverage during his election run, than we will have an article. At present we lack such, he does not pass notability. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs, it is an encyclopedia built on reliable secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kerns is a candidate running for a high elected office and Wikipedia offers some of the only known information about. User:Mrhalohunter24 —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Candidate running for a high elected office" is not a reason why somebody gets a Wikipedia article, in and of itself — we keep articles about holders of political office, not candidates for it. And if we offer "some of the only known information about him", then that's doubly a reason why we can't keep an article — our job here is to follow the media coverage, not to lead it. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasoning. Individual is completely non-notable. ALPolitico (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:NPOL says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" but it does not say "an unelected candidate for political office does not automatically mean no notability." In this instance, he has made important contributions to the race which mean the entry should be kept, at least until the race is over. What I find especially troubling about the way many editors approach this is how it is biased to incumbents and largely undemocratic as a result. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way have these important contributions been documented in independent reliable sources to establish notability? --Whpq (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we delete this? Because we're concerned that it might be perceived as "campaign literature"? Bangabandhu (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You ask why we would delete this. It's stated right in the deletion nomination. "Does not meet WP:NPOL". It has nothing to do with concerns about it being perceived as campaign literature. As for the articles you prvoded, the first article is about Pat Sellers. Kerns is mentioned as a volunteer. The second article is about 3rd party candidates as a concept, and quotes Kerns but is not about Kerns. The third article simply mentions he is planning to run. None of that supports notability in the Wikipedia sense. -- Whpq (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the thread and saw the reference to WP:NPOL. I don't think its enough to reference that document, but editors should have to explain exactly why an entry doesn't meet those criteria. I've provided a sample of cites. They're far from exhaustive, but they show that the subject of the entry is frequently called on as a community leader and important third-party politician. We could do a more thorough search and I'm sure we'd find more. But a hasty deletion prevents the addition of those sources. Sure, the article could be resurrected, but that is far from likely. Those cites exist and could be added, which is what we should be doing rather than pushing for deletion. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to WP:NPOL, it's not a complicated notability guideline. Unless you're claiming he's been previously elected, then it's all about the required significant press coverage which is missing. The three articles you pointed out above are not significant coverage and he is the primary topic of exactly zero of those three articles. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2017 (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.