Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Ryon


 * 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   delete. Shimeru (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dave Ryon

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article which exists only to raise the profile of a political candidate, which the author makes clear here, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. WP:POLITICIAN states that unelected candidates are not inherently notable and there is no other indication of notability: the references and external links are all either (a) the subject's own campaign sites, (b) tables of results which include the subject amonst them, or (c) coverage of the elections, with passing reference to subject - ie no significant 3rd party coverage, and certainly nothing outside of being as political candidate. Twice speedily deleted as David Ryon, the author has recreated the article citing the existence of articles on opponents Mary Jo Kilroy and Steve Stivers as grounds for inclusion, but those individuals are elected politicians and therefore notable. I42 (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable politician who has yet to win a single race. (GregJackP (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Delete GregJack sums it up for me. The statement that he had been "a Republican candidate for the United States Congress in the 12th district of Ohio" has to be tempered with "Ryon took just under 10 percent of the vote in the Republican Primary".  Even party nominees aren't normally entitled to their own article.  He can be mentioned (no redirect, no merge) in the article about Ohio's 15th congressional district.  Mandsford (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Save Correction Steve Stivers is not currently holding any office. The original David Ryon article had been up for over a year without anybody challenging it. I would a least suggest you hold off on the delete until after today's primary.  If Mr. Ryon wins his primary which would be historic since its the only contested Constitution Party primary in Ohio and the first Constitution Party primary in Ohio that has to be notable. If David Ryon loses then I would agree the article should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.119.183 (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ambiguous phrasing; apologies. For clarity: both are people who have been elected, and therefore are notable. Notability is not temporary, so whether they are still in office is irrelevant. I42 (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What was he elected to, exactly? It's not in his biography.  And who is he running against in the primary election, since there isn't a choice between two or more poeple for the right to be the Constitution candidate in November?  Mandsford (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Now it's getting confusing! "Both" as I meant it were Mary Jo Kilroy and Steve Stivers in the original nomination, not Stivers and Ryon. I42 (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Routinely unsuccessful candidates are not notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Agree with Mandsford's analysis. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Save Dup !vote struck There were two candidates running for the nomination of the Constitution Party in Ohio's 15th Congressional District.  David Ryon and Chris Macisco both were candidates in Ohio's first and only contested Constitution Party Primary on May 4, 2010.  In unofficial results from the Secretary of State of Ohio with 100% of the Statewide precincts reporting, David Ryon is winning with a 2.5% lead over Chris Macisco. Isn't winning a notable achievement in a first and only contested Constitution Party primary ever held in Ohio?  It means that David Ryon earned the right to be on the General Ballot in November as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.119.183 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 5 May 2010
 * Wikipedia guidelines state that in general such elections are not notable enough to assert notability to the winner of the contest: WP:POLITICIAN asserts notability only to "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges". You state that this Primary was historic and therefore notable, and here what Wikipedia requires is significant independent coverage in reliable sources that demonstrate that it is historic and therefore notable. But be aware that if such coverage is produced and consensus is reached that it does indicate that the election is exceptional, WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E may well still apply: even though an event may be notable, the individual(s) involved (who are not otherwise notable) are covered as part of that event, not in separate articles about them. I42 (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not another vote but information. Basically, the David Ryon article had been up for over a year before two meatpuppets came on and started to vanadlize the article. The David Ryon article was receving nearly 180 + hits a month. The meatpuppets in this case were to get the article removed instead of saved. The article was up for over year and NOW all the of the sudden there is a huge demand for its deletion. It gives a completely unfair and bias slant toward incumbent politicians. And like anything else policies can simply be abused in order to help the major party candidates. The people demanding the deletion may just be meatpuppets from the Stivers and Kilroy campaign to trying to minimize information about David Ryon to the media. We all know that major media outlets do use this site for information. This congressional race is one of the most watched currently in the United States and notable. Part of the notability are the candidates involved. When a notable event with only 4 candidates occur people are going to want information about the candidates. I go back to my original comment. The David Ryon article was receiving 180 + hits a month. SOMEBODY was taking the time to read about David Ryon. And now SOMEBODIES are trying to get the article removed interesting at how that works. There were 5 national media news sources that mention David Ryon. Here read them for yourselves. One comparing David Ryon to Doug Hoffman in the New York's 23rd Congressional Race. Plus, try this...see how much media coverage you can find on William Kammerer the Libertarian candidate in Ohio's 15th congressional race see how many mentions of him do you find in these national syndicated media outlets. David Ryon is getting National Press and not all the candidates in the race did. I would like to point out that there were 7 candidates in the beginning. Ryon, Stivers, and Kilroy being the only ones getting National Press. Why did the National Media mention David Ryon and not the other candidates William Kammerer, Chris Macisco, John Adams, Ralph Applegate?


 * The Washington Times Article
 * National Journal Hotline Article
 * The Hill Article
 * The Wall Steet Journal Article
 * POLITICO Article
 * A Blog comparing David Ryon to Doug Hoffman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.119.183 (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please desist from your personal attacks. For the record, your assumptions about the reason I nominated this article for deletion are entirely false - I have absolutley no involvement in US politics; I am not even a US citizen. The article first drew my attention when it appeared on 5 May during New Page patrol; the only consideration was whether it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and it is clear to me that it does not. I42 (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - the links above notwithstanding, it still fails WP:POLITICIAN, which states in fn7 that "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Ryon does not meet that criteria. The links you provide show:
 * The Washington Times Article - passing mention one time in article about Hoffman.
 * National Journal Hotline Article - one line notice that Ryon would not contest GOP nomination.
 * The Hill Article - passing mention in article about Stivers.
 * The Wall Steet Journal Article - passing mention one time in article about Hoffman.
 * POLITICO Article - more coverage, but in a D.C. local free newsletter which is simultaneously offered on the web. The article states that he is a "long-shot candidate with little public support..."
 * A Blog comparing David Ryon to Doug Hoffman - brief article on a non-notable blog.
 * These articles do not seem to meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN noted above. GregJackP (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I see everyone keeps side stepping and ignoring the face the original David Ryon article was up for over a year getting 180+ hits a month. Where we you a over a year ago when the original article went up? For the record, I was pointing out that the two vandals that we editing and vandalizing the original David Ryon article were meatpuppets. It is obvious. Both accounts that were created shows in their history that only contributions that offered were edits to the original David Ryon article if that had never happened we would not even be having this discussion today. The oroginal David Ryon would still be up if it had not been vandalize. AND IT WAS VANDALIZE by two meatpuppets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.119.183 (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing some kind of amnesty because the article didn't get discussed sooner? What policy supports that? I42 (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - concur with I42, there is no merit to the argument that getting 180+ hits means that the article should be spared deletion if it is not notable. GregJackP (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is the original David Ryon article would still be up if it had not been vandalize by two meat-puppets. Obviously wikipedia policies are slanted to incumbents and offers free advertising for them. I read through Stivers article what makes it notable? Just because he was a state senator doesn't mean he was notable, I don't see anything notable about him but he gets a wiki article. I would say that the Steve Stivers article lacks many of the standards that you claim the Ryon article does not live up too but you are only holding the Ryon article accountable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.119.183 (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Vandalism or other issues sometimes expose an article to many eyes when it went unseen before, and wikipedia is slanted by design towards topics that have coverage in reliable sources. -- Nuujinn (talk) 23:40, 11 May 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.