Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Lowe (2nd nomination)


 * 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   redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010. Agreeing with the adminw ho reverted their own close as they forgot they voted Spartaz Humbug! 10:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ben Lowe
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Generally, failed candidates for office should be deemed non-notable in terms of having their own Wikipedia article. There are exceptions...notable businessmen prior to the electoral events, former officeholders at the state level, or those who have otherwise garnered significant coverage in reliable sources, e.g. Alvin Greene, Christine O'Donnell, Stephene Moore. But this person simply ran for office and failed. Scant coverage from some local and religious sites about his early life as an outreach director for a Christian organization and a book published, some routine electoral coverage and a bizarre episode of a racial profiling claim that hit a blurb in HuffPo and the Chicago Sun-Times. As I more or less noted in Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mee (2nd nomination) recently, WP:ONEEVENT + WP:ONEEVENT shouldn't be an automatic qualifier for notability. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Notice - This article has been the target of a long-running campaign of harassment and sock-puppeteering by who has wanted it deleted by any means as an attack on Lowe himself.  Participation in this discussion by SPAs calling to delete need to be scrutinized closely. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010. I didn't find significant coverage in secondary sources sufficient to pass WP:BIO, his book is unremarkable and he thus fails WP:AUTH, and he fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ray  Talk 18:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, merge, or redirect BLP of person not notable except for candidacy, and did not win election. &rarr;  Stani Stani  21:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010 per Ray's reasoning. There has been some scattered debate as to whether it is best to "delete and redirect" or just plain "redirect". If there are no BLP concerns, I favor saving the edit history just in case. Location (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect , per nom. Much water's gone under the bridge since the last AfD & failed candidates aren't really that notable in themselves - A l is o n  ❤ 06:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Switching to 'delete' per Andrew Lenahan's commentary below - A l is o n  ❤ 22:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. He's not notable for the campaign, but he's a published author and therefore likely notable enough for his environmental work. According to WorldCat: "1 edition published in 2009 in English and held by 108 libraries worldwide." Note: I generally check to see if someone's book is, perhaps, held by one library which just happens to be in their hometown. ;-) The article should of course be rewritten to emphasize the latter rather than the former. If no one's interested in updating the article, then redirect to save the history of the article. I looked at Shane Claiborne because he was referenced in the article, and some of the Categories for him would apply to this guy as well. If redirecting, I would suggest redirecting to Christianity and environmentalism or something similar. Flatterworld (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not convinced about the redirect, simply because in most cases it doesn't seem like a good idea to redirect failed candidates to the race they lost, that would set a bad precedent. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ...that would set a bad precedent
 * How so? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a bad precedent here. When an article about a candidate comes up for deletion after an election, it's not because the subject went from notable to non-notable; it's because the subject was already non-notable by Wikipedia standards (biography of someone who has never won major office, etc.) and shouldn't have been created, but editors hold off on the deletion requests for a bit so that an already-existing article's work won't be lost if the election made the subject imminently notable.  If the failed race has become the subject's WP:ONEEVENT, it's probably appropriate to redirect.  If they are not particularly known for any specific event, then perhaps the article shouldn't be redirected, just deleted. --Closeapple (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I would say defeated political candidates are generally not notable and I do not think this is an exception. Captain   panda  21:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The frisking incident? People do not achieve notability be being frisked. Congressional candidacy? Failed congressional candidates do not generally rate an an article, in my view. The fact that he was soundly thumped does doesn't help the case for keeping the article. Published author? That is the only thing on which to hang any argumement for notability. But he only wrote one book. And there's no indication that its an especially notable book. So that's not enough. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Flatterworld - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Ditto Flatterworld and Ret.Prof; Lowe is a rising star in the environmentalist movement who wrote a notable book and got quoted in Good Morning America. Check it out here People don't loose notability just because they lost an election. Keep. Wikibojopayne (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What kind of fanboyism is this? You can't lose something you never had to begin with; there is no evidence or sources to support a "rising star" assertion, the book was put out by a minor evangelical publisher, and he was quoted as a random student for a GMA piece years ago.  A handful of piddling, minor events does not add up to notability. Tarc (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Figure who has received plenty of coverage by reliable sources. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 04:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm A number of the sources on the page are the same article, different urls, and at least two others are 404ing IOW the reliable sources are already labelling him as yesterday's news. This article is going to have a major job keeping any semblance of references John lilburne (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Flatterworld. Hmm, I am Very sure some In the CommuniTIy May hOpe For CErtaiN thingS tO be Removed, but thiS sHould be retaIned, so I !vote keeP.--Milowent • talkblp-r  04:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cute, but as one can see by the notices plastered up top, this has nothing to do with advancing Joe Hazleton's repugnant agenda. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, as they say. Tarc (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and as sacrificial lamb candidate, fails WP:BLP1E. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable as a politician and I can't find enough coverage or anything else to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The words "a rising star" by one of the keeps is in and of itself an indication that this fails notability. Come back when this person is notable. If a person could be notable in the future, it isn't enough. Sven Manguard  Talk  06:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect I see no need for separate article per Abductive. However a redirect to the election results page and section works better and is used in other cases (Scotland Politicians for example, works fine and allows for easy recreation later if need be). Outback the koala (talk) 08:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Figure is notable as having a large contribution to environmentalism within the american evangelical movement. He has been covered greatly within the american evangelical media establishment and so his entry would prove useful to the members of this large minority as well as those interested in studying it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.128.200 (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)  — 92.41.128.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete This guy is only notable to someone that has never done anything. His non-notablity is demonstrated by the frisking section which is the largest section in the article. Come on we've all been frisked, some of us have spent a night in the cells for having longhair and wearing blue jeans. If that is the major part of his notability sheesh - I doubt that Bob Dylan will be writing another Hurrican song over this fellow. John lilburne (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC) — John lilburne (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment My apologies. I closed this AfD as "redirect". When I placed the "old AfD" tag on the article's talk page I realised I had participated in an earlier AfD on this article (and !voted to redirect!). So I have reverted my close. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.