Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cris Ericson (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 keep.  So Why  08:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Cris Ericson
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable failed politician whose claim to fame is being mentioned as a colorful candidate that appeared in a C-SPAN broadcast debate. Lacks in-depth, non-trivial coverage. red dogsix (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Colorful perennial candidate who campaigned for cannabis (marijuana) before it became ok to talk about in public. Notable for running as a marijuana candidate in every election cycle for almost two decades. Nationally noted by stories in Newsweek and Time magazines. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Not sure how running for office and always losing meets Wikipedia notability criteria - it certainly does not meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. The Time and Newsweek mentions are very trivial (both are single line mentions) and lack in-depth reporting.   red dogsix (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Reply[1] AND, on top of that, being notably colorful. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please show me where being "colorful" is a criteria for Wikipedia based notability. red dogsix (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Reply[2] In Newsweek a paragraph is significant, and sharing the subject of the article's title in Time is significant. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * These are far from non-trivial, significant discussions of the article subject. red dog<i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This is about a person who is famous for losing. And, according to a 2016 poll, more than one out of every eight Vermonters know who she is. And yes, of course it is possible to become notorious for being colorful. Wikipedia notability requirements are met, unquestionably, by the article. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but popularity has nothing to do with Wikipedia based notability. red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 *  Delete Comment The criteria for notability of a person are found at Notability (people). Key among these is, having "received significant coverage [my emphasis] in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." A Google News search of the subject revealed that most entries mentioned the subject only in her replying in a comment to an article. Only the following mentioned her directly, but incidentally:
 * An incidental mention in three articles does not meet the significant coverage criterion for notability. User:HopsonRoad 00:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * An incidental mention in three articles does not meet the significant coverage criterion for notability. User:HopsonRoad 00:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * An incidental mention in three articles does not meet the significant coverage criterion for notability. User:HopsonRoad 00:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * An incidental mention in three articles does not meet the significant coverage criterion for notability. User:HopsonRoad 00:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment There are currently 16 good, reliable sources cited in the article. And at least a dozen of the pieces are significant, so that merits notability for the subject. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Once more, these are far from non-trivial, significant discussions of the article subject. red <b style="color:#000;">dog</b><i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And again I will repeat yes, in fact several of the citations are non-trivial, significant discussions. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:BASIC states that, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[7]" Footnote [7] speaks to what's trivial. I thank The Hammer of Thor for bringing forward more sources than were visible at the top of my Google search. I find these to be germane to this discussion:
 * These seem to satisfy the definition of non-triviality at WP:BASIC (Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail.) Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 23:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * These seem to satisfy the definition of non-triviality at WP:BASIC (Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail.) Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 23:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * These seem to satisfy the definition of non-triviality at WP:BASIC (Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail.) Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 23:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * These seem to satisfy the definition of non-triviality at WP:BASIC (Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail.) Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 23:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * These seem to satisfy the definition of non-triviality at WP:BASIC (Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail.) Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 23:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I am satisfied that seven multiple independent sources in two separate election cycles demonstrate notability, lacking in-depth coverage in any one of them. User:HopsonRoad 13:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Additional mentions include: A short mention but not irrelevant, in my view. DES (talk)
 * Delete a perennial candidate. Every reference I've checked (including all 7 listed by User:HopsonRoad in this discussion) notes that she is a candidate, but don't discuss her candidacy or her in particular. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Elaborating why I think the subject meets Wikipedia notability requirements at WP:N and WP:BIO:
 * An autobiographical article was started in 2007 and was deleted. However, had someone located citations, I think the subject would have met notability requirements at that time. She had already gotten national attention in 2004 as the subject of an article in CollegeHumor and she had been mentioned in the NYT in 2006.
 * The subject is notable for three things, (1) being a cannabis activist, putting "marijuana' onto the Vermont ballot next to her name, long before Colorado and other states voted for legalization. See CollegeHumor citation above; (2) being remarkably colorful, documented in numerous sources from election cycles in 2012, 2014, and 2016. See list of references; and (3) being a famous failure. See Heady Vermont below.
 * She is well-known for losing. According to a 2016 poll in Vermont Digger, more than one out of every eight Vermonters know who she is. As a matter of fact, in Vermont, the subject's name is synonymous with "losing-est." (See the use of subject's name in Heady Vermont.)
 * The references cited in the article are non-trivial. The subject meets all requirements at WP:BASIC. Keep. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The NYT source is in-depth coverage. Among the "others running", her positions are the only ones that are mentioned. Also, she has run multiple times over the years and received coverage the different times she ran.  New York Times, Time (magazine), Fox News, Business Insider are all reliable sources.  Coverage of her "style" does not render such coverage "trivial".  Per HopsonRoad, WP's "trivial" does not mean "lighthearted", it means something closer to "nonessential".  Clearly the coverage of her style is non-trivial to the sources cited.  Am I wrong?  Show me how and I'll gladly change my vote.:-)  Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  04:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources included in article satisfy inclusion criteria. MartinJones (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  15:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  15:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per HopsonRoad's fine re-analysis of The Hammer of Thor's sources, also noting that several of the delete statements about perennial candidacies reduce to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Bri (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J <i style="color:#137412;">947</i>(c) (m) 23:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the case for deletion is that she (very definitely) doesn't meet NPOL, and there's no claim of notability for her other than through WP:MILL election-related coverage. I note Articles for deletion/Gregory Creswell as a similar case recently closed as deleted. No amount of election-related coverage will make a perennial candidate notable, they must have some coverage other than as a politician to meet GNG. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It's interesting that you mention WP:MILL, because that's en excellent illustration of why the subject meets WP:GNG: She's definitely not run-of-the-mill; she's exceptionally bad. (Please see my comments above.) -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, despite the initial closure as a Delete, Gregory Creswell became a redirect to Libertarian Party of Michigan. Ericson has run as an independent, as a member of the United States Marijuana Party, and a member of the Democratic Party (United States). User:HopsonRoad 15:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I would support a Redirect to United States Marijuana Party. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I would not support a redirect, for the reason that HopsonRoad discusses, the subject of the article is an Independent politician and has also run as a candidate of several different parties. A redirect to U.S. Marijuana Party, one of the parties she's campaigned for, would be inappropriate. Keep. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2017 (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.