Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Zimmerman


 * 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 17:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Zimmerman
Prodded as WP:BIO -- minor political figure, prod removed, welcome to AfD. He ran, he lost, he's doing his Masters. Eusebeus 15:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable person. When he wins a national job, we'll create him an article.Obina 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - NN &mdash; ßottesiηi  Tell me what's up 19:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Just because a person runs for political office does not make them notable. Rishodi 19:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the author and person who is discussed in this article. I feel the need to make a few points. WP:BIO is not a Wikipedia policy, just a criteria. The page clearly states that the concept of notability is contentious. The political process that makes Democracy like governments great is the participation of those people who win and lose. To claim that those who lose elections are not important is silly. Anyone seeking to do any research on Congressman Bobby Jindal (a "notable person" by the guidelines listed by those above) should be able to get data on all of his opponents. Wikipedia would be an incomplete reference if it only contained information about the winners and failed to mention those who tried to win the seat but lost. I also was not notified of this potential action taken against the article, as suggested by the Articles_for_deletion#AfD_etiquette| Afd Etiquette DanielZimmerman 22:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet here you are already, mere hours after the nomination. I also feel the need to make a few points:
 * I checked the page randomly. There are several policy guidelines that where ignored that are listed on the Articles for Deletion page DanielZimmerman 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO is not a Wikipedia policy, just a criteria. Immediately falling back on legalisms instead of actual arguments is generally a bad sign. Ignoring the guidelines, ignoring the reasoning behind the guidelines, and ignoring the precedents of following the guidelines: these don't help your case.
 * I did not fall back on "legalisms", I merely stated a comment that exists on the WP:BIO page. If I have a policy violation then I expect to be notified and/or to have that violation fixed. DanielZimmerman 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To claim that those who lose elections are not important is silly. Doesn't even rise to the level of argument.
 * I was trying to be brief. The political process relies on people who come forth and discuss the issues. Those who fail to gain the support of the voters still play an important part in the shaping of public policy. Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased source. So why would you only include references to the winners of elections? It makes no sense. DanielZimmerman 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia would be an incomplete reference... Here, I could note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or refer to Jorge Luis Borges story about an empire mistaking the map for the territory, or note the words of User:Gamaliel, who once wrote:
 * Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not the Library of Babel, nor is it an endless and tedious compendium of every bit of trivia and gossip and useless, insignificant "facts". It is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground. That means we have a duty not to mindlessly compile facts but to present them in a concise and usable manner, making judgments about which facts are important and which are not.
 * Having basic standards of notability is what keeps this place from becoming the Yellow Pages. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that Wikipedia should be an indiscriminate collection of information. However, Wikipedia is also supposed to be unbiased. If Wikipedia will only contain information about the winners of election, it can hardly be said to be unbiased. Should every person on the face of the Earth have a wikipedia page? Absolutely not. However, those to take part in the political process, win or lose, play an important part. Obviously Wikipedia agrees that those who run and win are worthy of mention. The Wikipedia  2004 House Results page not only mentions those candidates who ran in all races; it also links to their pages. If Wikipedia did not want pages for people who run for office then why does that page link to each and every candidate? (Not all have pages that have been started. However, all of them have links).  DanielZimmerman 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The losers of national elections are deserving of mention. However, that does not mean that each one deserves an entire article devoted to their person. As far as I'm concerned, the only significant information I'd want to know pertaining to losers of elections who are otherwise non-notable is their political party and the voting results by tally and percentage, which is most easily listed in a collective article such as the one to which you linked. If you could update the article to meet WP:V and WP:BIO by noting references, especially those to "significant media coverage" as has been mentioned, then I would change my vote to keep. On a side note, my high school civics teacher ran for state senate as an independent party candidate. He ran quite a campaign, and received a significant number of votes, but lost (as is usually the case with independent party candidates). All of his students, including myself, thought it was quite a remarkable event given the amount of effort he put into campaigning. Despite my opinion of him, which is that he was a great teacher and person and would have made an excellent state senator, I do not think him notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. The same goes for you; it's nothing personal. Rishodi 06:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If the people who participated in Congressional elections are not "deserving" of a Wikipedia page then why does the 2004 Congressional Race section of Wikipedia include links to each and every page belonging to each and every candidate in that race? I could understand your point IF that page was written and only included textual references of the candidates. However, the page includes links to Wikipedia pages of each and every person who ran. Please tell me what "significant media coverage" is and I will endeavor to link to each and every article that is available. DanielZimmerman 14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because an editor of that page made each person's name a link does not mean that each one of them is notable enough for his or her own article in an encyclopedia. I suggest you read WP:BLP and the other guideline references on this page, and find as many credible sources to cite in your article as possible. The only way this article will not be deleted is if you prove notability using multiple verifiable sources. As the article currently stands, I would guess that there is some media coverage on the election information presented in the first paragraph, but as for the last two paragraphs, if the information presented there cannot be verified, then it is vanity information and should be removed. Rishodi 18:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would the editor of that page make each person's name linked if the editor did not think all where deserving of a Wikipedia page? The page can be created with plain text for the names of candidates and when one of those candidates has a page that is added, the Election page could then be edited. On the verifiable issue, I have just added some pages linking to several different sources verifying certain facts stated on the election. Some of those pages not only mention the races, but they also mention the information in the next paragraphs. (For example, articles referring to the election mention the fact that I am seeking my Masters in Computer Science). DanielZimmerman 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Overlinking is a common problem. --Ajdz 21:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that political career, but politician wannabe articles are nuked all the time. Delete. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the term "politician wannabe" really unbiased? DanielZimmerman 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. It is also problematic on WP:Vanity grounds. The concensus on political candidates is unsuccessful candidates must be notable on other grounds or attracted significant media attention to establish verifiablity. It would probably be best in Daniel Zimmerman not work on his own article. Capitalistroadster 01:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What is "significant media attention"? Who defines it? On who should be creating the page about me, I could have created a Wikipedia name that was not my own and then pretended to be someone else when I make edits to Wikipedia but I have nothing to hide. If you can point out points in the article where I have been "vain" then point them out and i will edit them (or edit them yourself). It seems to be "odd" at the very least to think that had I posted my own article with an ambiguous Wikipedia name and pretended to not be me that this would be an issue. If my honesty is a detrement to my contributions on Wikipedia, then what does that say about Wikipedia. DanielZimmerman 05:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your "vanity" is evident in the sole fact that you did indeed write a page about yourself. See WP:AUTO. If you are deemed notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, then inevitably someone else would write an article about you. This alone is not a reason for deletion, however it certainly does not help your case. Rishodi 06:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I had intended on writing pages on every candidate in the 2004 Race for Louisiana's First Congressional District. Unfortunately many of them had taken their own websites down as sources. I still intend on doing so based on the news reports of the election. Again, the Wikipedia page devoted to the 2004 Election provides for pages that discuss ALL people who ran, not just the winners. DanielZimmerman 14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You contend that every losing candidate is notable enough for their own article; however, given the results of this AfD page alone, this is obviously not the consensus of Wikipedia's editors.


 * Delete - WP:AUTO and claim to fame appears to be losing three elections, one of which was a 74 point defeat and the other two were for offices so minor as to lack articles themselves. This is what user pages are for. --Ajdz 05:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Barely notable and has all the signs of a vanity article. As the above have mentioned, also falls under WP:AUTO and fails to satisfy the necessary conditions for WP:BIO--Cini 08:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I will again point out that if I had been "sneeky" I could have created a user name on Wikipedia that was not my name. Then nobody would have known who created the article. So my honesty is causing the "vanity" issue because I was honest in presenting who I was to the Wikipedia community. If the decision is made to delete because "I" created my own article then all you are doing is forcing people to be dishonest when creating pages where they have something to do with the subject of the article. If I was being vain in the article itself then I would see the point of vanity. DanielZimmerman 15:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And again, you're completely missing the point. Have you even read WP:VANITY and WP:AUTO? It does not exist to encourage users to be dishonest, it exists to discourage users from including information about themselves that cannot be verified, is not notable, or is not written in neutral point of view. Had you been "sneaky", you probably still would have been discovered eventually. I imagine that the personal information you have included in the last two paragraphs is very difficult to verify, and that clue alone suggests that the editor who provided that information was someone personally connected to the article's subject. The issue is not your honesty, it's the fact that you wrote an article about yourself, regardless of the means you used to do so. Rishodi 18:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have listed articles that verify information in all of the paragraphs, not just the candidate paragraph. Some facts are verified on Wikipedia itself (the fact that I am an alumni of the Baltimore Polytechnic Institute is verified on Wikipedia. Other facts, like me seeking my Masters Degree in Computer Science are verified in the articles pertaining to my running for office. Everything that I have put up there should already be verified by the information that I just linked to. If there are small bits of information that are not verifiable then I understand removing those small pieces but not the whole article. But the vast majority of information in all paragraphs has been verified and none of the information has "POV" issues. Those two issues are Wikipedia policy and I HAVE followed them. Notability is NOT Wikipedia policy. However, someone thought I was notable enough to be listed under the Notable Alumni of the Baltimore Polytechnic Institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielZimmerman (talk • contribs)


 * Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination. Eusebeus is systematically bringing disputed prods to AfD without regard to merits of dispute. Monicasdude 14:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is not a valid vote. A speedy keep can never be called for if other users have voted to delete. I would also point out that Monicasdude is systematically following Eusebeus around and pasting this exact same comment to any AFD he nominated today. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Response. It is a valid vote per speedy keep criterion 4, which expressly authorizes such a vote on grounds of disruption/bad faith/WP:POINT violation unless those claims have been rejected by prior delete votes. Read the policy more carefully. Monicasdude 18:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Physician, heal thyself. Kuzaar 19:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Irrespective of the spirit in which the nomination was brought, other delete "votes" resting on adequate, independent grounds had been cast, so "speedy keep" is likely inappropriate, even in view of criterion four. If the argument is to be that, where a nomination is thought to be brought in bad faith, any deletes that espouse the same position as the nomination ought to be discarded under criterion four (or ought not to be recognized for the purposes of closing a debate as "speedy keep"), we are left then with the prospective situation in which a nomination, evidently brought in bad faith yet nevertheless justified on other grounds enumerated by the nominator, is to be closed as "speedy keep" even where our guidelines, generally, would seem to militate in favor of "delete". Joe 02:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Ran, lost, forgotten.  -- GWO
 * Delete: Had he won his run for the House of Reps he'd be notable, but until he does, nn. Kuzaar 19:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- JamesTeterenko 22:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see my comment on the discussion page of WP:BIO about the addition and deletion of political candidates. In breif, if holding a certain office is enough to gain notability then running for that office should be enough to gain notability. Otherwise, wikipedia will be seen as biased towards certain candidates in a race. Either, we cover all candidates in a race or we cover none. It is that simple. DanielZimmerman 01:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I wanted to provide some interesting links that I have found on Wikipedia wondering why these are deserving of articles while political candidates for major offices are not.
 * Fhqwhgads - A fictional character on a cartoon website.
 * List_of_Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation_episodes - A list of Star Trek Episodes that could clearly be found on other websites.
 * Inanimate_Carbon_Rod - A fictional minor character on the Simpsons has its own page.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It is supposed to be a place where people can do research. I find it much more plausible that someone would want to get information about former congressional candidates than about an Inanimate Carbon Rod. DanielZimmerman 19:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as self-promotion. Information on Daniel Zimmerman could only belong in the article on Bobby Jindal, who won the election, in a section that talked about the 2004 congressional election.  I can hardly imagine it would read more than "Bobby Jindal won the election handily, with more than 78% of the vote.  His opponents were Roy Armstrong (D), M. V. Mendoza (D), Daniel Zimmerman (D), Jerry Watts (D), and Mike Rogers (R), none of whom earned more than 7% of the vote."  Mango juice talk 14:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Its no wonder why so few people run for office or even have an interest in politics. The way you people trivialize those who take part in a major election is really disgusting. What % do you think makes a candidate "notable" enough to qualify for your approval? I was PROUD of my campaign, not necessarily because of the results but because I was able to help victims of Hurricane Ivan by collecting goods to be donated to them. The ONLY reason I dont have that information on the page currently is because there was no news coverage of that event so under Wikipedias policy it would not be verifiable. But people are willing to let campaigns for national office to be forgotten because of some %. I also want to state, yet again, that if Wikipedia allows for one candidate to be listed then it should allow for all candidates to be listed otherwise it will be seen as biased towards certain candidates and against others. DanielZimmerman 14:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: People who sell 5000 copies of a book are somehow notable enough to get listed on Wikipedia but someone who got over 12000 votes for a national political office is not notable enough? What sense does that make? If selling 5000 books (not a large number of books to be sold) is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia then someone who received more than 5000 votes in an election should also be notable enough to have an article. Ill stop editing my own page and allow others to remove all that is not verifiable from the articles listed to stop the idea of self promotion. DanielZimmerman 14:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Obvious Autobiography of a basically non-notable erstwhile politican, borders on a Vanity Page--WilliamThweatt 19:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggest that this "vote" be overlooked because of a current disagreement between myself and William on the topic of Sean Hannity. DanielZimmerman 20:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Disagreements" are common on WP, if fact, "disagreement" are probably par for the course here. It is only through mutual, logical dialogue and constructive debate that meaningful articles will be created. If we all were constantly in agreement, there would be no need for "talk pages", "AfDs", "RfCs", etc.  I submit that a "disagreement" at another article is not a valid reason to discount my opinion regarding this one.  I constantly monitor the AfD page, nominate AfDs and vote in AfDs in my areas of expertise often.  Please, per the WP guidelines Mr. Zimerman, assume good faith concerning my ability to be objective.--WilliamThweatt 20:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You did not assume good faith in my edit of the Sean Hannity page, describing the change as "petty". Your entrance into this discussion was made only after you made that comment. Had you assumed good faith towards me perhaps I would have been able to assume good faith on your part. You have also stated that you will go back and revise the Sean Hannity article tomorrow based on nothing but your own opinion and not based on any attempt to reach a consensus FIRST and have shown that you will not be acting in good faith in that discussion. You have shown that when it comes to the Sean Hannity article you will not be attempting any "mutual, logical dialogue" or any "constructive debate" and that you will unilaterally remove my addition to the Sean Hannity article when I have provided multiple, verifiable, sources that show Sean Hannity incorrectly representing the Preamble. Why would I beleive that you would act in good faith in this discussion as well? DanielZimmerman 23:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Again, you are obfuscating the facts. I described the incident you wished to include as "petty", not your efforts themselves.  I have made every effort on that talk page to present logical arguments and rebuttals but you refuse to engage in discussion and simply state the same thing over and over.  I haven't reverted your POV because I refuse (good faith) to engage in an edit war.  As for "unilaterally", I offered to submit (good faith) to mediation, you have not responded and therefore leave me no other choice.--WilliamThweatt 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This conversation is about more than just WP:BLP, it is also about notability. Perhaps it seems vain that I am making a stand on the notability issue on the article that I wrote about myself. However, I personally do not care if I have a Wikipedia page about me. My life will go on just fine without it and if it is the opinion that my page should be deleted then so be it. That does not change the fact that I strongly disagree with those who wish to delete ANY article just because the topic of the article is not deemed "notable" by that user's standards. My proposed compromise would be that someone else should go through the article and delete all of the information that is not verifiable, and making sure that the remaining information is follows the NPOV policy. And i will only stick my head in to the page in the manner deemed appropriate by the BLP polcy. We can then go to the other places like WP:BIO and WP:AfD and start the discussion over there as to what political races and candidates should qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia.DanielZimmerman 23:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Last comment on this topic: This is my final comment on this issue. If this issue was merely about WP:BLP then I would simply appologize for being ignorant of that specific Wikipedia policy. I pledge from now on to follow the guideline about not writing about myself  and would hope that others would also follow the same suggestions that are presented about dealing with  newbies like myself.


 * Delete nn person. Does not pass WP:BIO. Also a little comment: Even if other less-notable people or subjects have articles here on Wikipedia, it does not mean that they set the lower limit for notability. Wikipedia has more than one million users, and as I see it the only person who can set a definitive notability requirement would be Jimbo himself! Thus we are likely to find some articles being kept even if the subject is less notable than others being deleted. Bjelleklang  -  talk 01:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Lest malign motive should be imputed to my vote, as it has been to others', I should say that I've been a Bobby Jindal critic since before The Weekly Standard and National Review fell in love with him. Notwithstanding that, though, the subject is non-notable; it is clear that, of the sundry details of his bio, only his candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives might confer notability, but unsuccessful candidates for the U.S. House are not notable exclusively in view of their candidacies (recognizing WP:NBD, I would nevertheless observe that we've arrived at the conclusion that unsuccesful candidates are not de facto notable on several AfDs of late).  There are candidates who, as a result of events during a given campaign, become notable, but solely standing for election, even as the nominee of a major party, does not a notable bio make.  DZ's position that, where verifiable and neutrally constructed, all articles, irrespective of the notability of their subjects, ought to be kept is often essayed, but there is surely not a consensus for that view (neither, further, do I think ever there will be nor do I think ever there should be).  Joe 02:54, 28 April 2006 (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.