Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ashe

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor politician, not yet elected, fails WP:BIO - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 10:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, major party candidate for national office. Kappa 12:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are 435 congressional districts within the United States. These seats come up for re-election every two years. Having a seperate article for every candidate who runs in each of these 435 districts every two years will provide us with a raft of articles of people who are notable solely for their failure to win a Congressional election. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 13:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think that people interested in US politics might find this article useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sjakkalle. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC) - note - individual mentioned in major national publications. People may come to wikipedia for more info after reading about him. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Extreme Unction. - Andre Engels 14:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sjakkalle. Wikipedia is not paper, and major party candidates for national offices strike me as inherently notable even if they are not elected. Smerdis of Tlön 15:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, we have hundreds of articles on Canadian candidates, and I see no reason why American ones should be treated differently. - SimonP 15:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This sure looks like promotion to me. Delete. If he wins and a useful article can be written about him, I have no prejudice against recreation. Friday (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, because losing in one of over four hundred races every two years for the last few hundred is not notable. And yes, we should probably chainsaw articles on Canadian politicians who have never won, too. Lord Bob 17:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If people think candidates for major office are inherently notable, why is that not listed as a criterion for inclusion per WP:BIO? It's pretty explicit: you have to be elected to a major office. Some of these guys are not even on the ticket yet! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Extreme Unction. -- Kjkolb 20:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just zis Guy, you know?'s point is well-taken. Also, someone should vet the above-referenced list of canadian candidate cruft (per Lord Bob) and put the losers into a single AfD so we can get rid of them as well. Dottore So 00:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Unction and Bob. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. It boggles my mind that people would want to delete an article on a current major-party congressional candidate. People are going to want to know about the candidates running for office. According to JzGyk's reasoning, H. Ross Perot wouldn't qualify for an article as a politician. -- Mwalcoff 04:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean, the founder of one of the few significant third parties in American politics in the last 50 years? Sounds like a claim of notability to me, even if we categorically disqualified failing in an election as a claim to notability. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the Perot comparison is informative. Perot founded EDS (WP:CORP), put up the capital for NeXT, and was probably the most-publicised third-party candidate in a US election in recent times (although Ralph Nader is also a contender for that). Even if Perot had never run for office, he would still be notable. And if he were not notable independently, his running twice for the office of President of the US against both major parties might arguably qualify him. Ashe is a hopeful for a much less important office, and completely lacks the other claims to notability. I urge the keep voters to read WP:BIO and cite which criteria Ashe meets. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 10:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Extreme Unction. Xoloz 16:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'd like to point out that congressional candidates now meet WP:BIO. Two weeks ago, I suggested on the talk page that congressional and legislative candidates should be considered automatically notable. The only objection was that it should be limited to credible candidates. I went ahead and made the change before reading AfD Thursday. Anyway, it seems to that BIO lists people who should gain automatic recognition but does not claim that anyone not on the list should be deleted. -- Mwalcoff 22:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. *drew 01:29, 16 November 2005 (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.