Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Fellure

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 keep. Consensus is that Fellure is notable despite strong arguments that WP:POLITICIAN is met. As WP:POLITICIAN is not black-letter law, it is open for that consensus to be formed. Mkativerata (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Fellure

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

Non-notable person. The Prohibition Party may itself be notable, but this unelected candidate, who does not enjoy the significant coverage in reliable sources which would enable him to pass WP:BIO and who fits none of the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN, is not notable. A previous AfD for an article on a Prohibition Party candidate resulted in a redirect to the article on the party; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leroy Pletten. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Leroy Pletten was a VP nominee of the Prohibition Party. Fellure is the current presidential nominee of the party. He satisfies criterion #1 of WP:POLITICIAN for winning the election at the National Prohibition Party convention. I wish the nominator would have discussed this at greater length on the talk page than having this knee jerk reaction.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No speedy keep criteria apply here, and I cannot fathom which "criterion #1 of WP:POLITICIAN" you believe you are quoting. Candidates are not even referred to in that criterion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National office refers to a position.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Candidate" is not a position. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominee is a position.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of argument, let's be generous and allow your claim that "nominee" is a position. It is still not, however, "office," national or otherwise. There is no possible way that you can argue that #1 supports the notability of this person, who has never been elected dog-catcher, let alone president. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the wiktionary definition of office: "3. A position of responsibility of some authority within an organisation". Presidential nominee of a national party is a political office. Because that office is national, the nominee satisfies criterion #1.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of sources discuss Fellure as a joke candidate or simply as a third party candidate. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name some of them? I see a lot of trivial mentions. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a lot of mentions in passing; so many that it makes a good case for IAR and a decision to keep the bio. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any rules need to be ignored since he passes criterion #1 of WP:POLITICIAN.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete ~~or Merge into~~ ~~United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012#Prohibition_Party~~. Ah, the things you learn on AfD. The coverage by third-party sources in definitely in question here for both 2012 and 1992. Fellure may not be an electable Republican candidate, but he did receive two sources of independent coverage during the initial 1992 Republican primaries in New Hampshire. However, The Williamson Daily News piece is fairly local and so the Baltimore Sun piece is the only significant coverage for the 1992 primaries, and it covers several third-party candidates. He also was not a nominee at this time. He has not received enough coverage as a 2012 candidate (yet). Mentions of his election to the Prohibition Party in what looks like two are insufficient, because they do not constitute "significant coverage" as per WP:POLITICIAN. I also disagree that a nominee for a party constitutes a political office. A political office assumes some level of political authority, and a nominee does not hold such authority yet. ~~We could consider moving some of his background and values into the article I suggested.~~ I Jethrobot (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Office was defined above. I see no evidence for the statement: "A political office assumes some level of political authority, and a nominee does not hold such authority yet." Such an individual certainly holds authority over the message of the national party. If the article is deleted or "merged" the information would not be moved to the article you suggest since he would not reach the page's notability requirement.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree that candidates hold authority over the party message, but I'll challenge your definition of "office" from WP:POLITICIAN with this one from the very same page: A bureau, an administrative unit of government. Though candidates in a political party may vie for election to an administrative unit of government, candidates are not elected to them yet. As for the merging, I've noted your comment. Thanks. --I Jethrobot (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Could we get biographic information into United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Prohibition_Party instead? I think some the info could be useful, I'm just not convinced that Fellure needs a page of his own. The WP:POLITICIAN states the following, with a footnote:

Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate.

Footnote: Deleting a biography in these cases instead of merely redirecting it makes recovering useful information from the page history difficult, and should be done only when there are relevant reasons other than lack of notability for removing the article from the mainspace. --I Jethrobot (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are so many candidates for the presidential election, the ones who do not meet wikipedia's notability requirement are removed. After the election there will be a list like the one used in 2008: List of candidates in the United States presidential election, 2008, which will show all the candidates that attained ballot access, however, there will be no prose on the individual candidates. Unfortunately, the WP:POLITICIAN section does not determine which definition of "office" is being used. Therefore, all that fit should apply. I don't think there's any dispute that the Prohibition Party is a national political (non-activist) organization. Thus, when someone is elected to such a position of notable responsibility (as the foremost party representative as presidential nominee) in such a national political (non-activist) organization, they meet the first criterion of WP:POLITICIAN. Even if you reject the office definition, you must see that it meets the spirit of the first criterion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think we should keep this one. I just don't think this is an obvious non notable and I just don't think we need the space on the servers bad enough at this point to chop him out. --Kumioko (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a clear case of keep - a nominee of a noteworthy party where all previous nominees have Wikipedia articles as well. At any rate, as WP:OUTCOMES#Politicians points out, leaders of political parties at the national or major sub-national level are considered notable, regardless of electoral success, which would certainly include Fellure. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per William S. Saturn & Philosopher. Certianly his presidential nomination makes him a leader of a registered party at the national level.--JayJasper (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the nominee for a fairly major third party. No reason to delete, since all other previous nominees for this party have articles. SOXROX (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep. Difluoroethene (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have the greatest respect for Roscelese, the nominator, and I disagree with William S. Saturn's argument that this article meets WP:POLITICIAN. However, I believe that the official presidential nominee of an historically notable U.S. political party can also be presumed to be notable. I favor broad and inclusive coverage of fringe political parties of both the left and the right, and their presidential (or top ranked) candidates. I reach this conclusion despite the fact that I personally violate the tenets of this particular political party frequently. This is the presidential candidate of a a party behind a movement that passed the only constitutional amendment that was later repealed. Though this candidate may be obscure, this encyclopedia is not printed on paper, and it has the room to cover fringe third party presidential candidates for a country as important as the United States. Cullen328 (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2011 (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.