Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy C. Strickland

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. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 17:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roy C. Strickland

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

Subject is not notable per

• 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, 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
  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 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: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. I just asked for input on a possible guideline change there. Mwelch 06:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG and Tommyduva Kzq9599 03:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The problem with this article is that the sourcing could be better, but there is no doubt that multiple reliable non-trivial sources exist for the runner-up in a major election. Dhaluza 10:19, 23 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: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 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
  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.