Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Williams III


 * 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. There is a clear consensus for delete amongst editors who are not blocked for socking, or IP accounts that voted without any policy-based arguments. Girth Summit  (blether) 12:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

David Williams III

 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. --Mpen320 (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Mpen320 (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

He is not notable Mpen320 (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Elaboration: A perennial candidate is not notable. Almost all coverage is related to his runs for political office which include in at least one instance losing at the >200 person Libertarian convention in 2018.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not seeing any RS for his Navy service and his claimed rank and service does not satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. So to earn inclusion here, he would have to pass one of two tests: either (a) he can demonstrate and reliably source that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway, or (b) he can demonstrate and reliably source that his candidacies were significantly more special than most other people's candidacies in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. But neither of those tests are being met here: the article is based almost entirely on primary sources (raw tables of election results, his own self-published website, the self-published websites of other organizations that he's directly affiliated with, social networking content, YouTube videos, etc.) that are not support for notability at all, and the very few sources that actually come from any real media outlets don't represent enough coverage to make him more special than most other candidates. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep article There are enough credible sources to allow this page to remain established. There are various political candidates nationwide on Wikipedia who have not won a single office and still have a page on Wikipedia and very little media coverage such as Austin Petersen from Missouri, or a Kash Jackson for Illinois governor in 2018. The political candidate, David Earl Williams III Service/qualifications via DD214 is found via his website, various press releases along with main stream media coverage past/present are properly linked on his Wikipedia page. Main stream notoriety for said candidate has been previously established. The page should remain and not be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cresluer80 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC) — Cresluer80 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Firstly, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the fact that somebody else has an article is not in and of itself a reason why David Williams gets to have one too. Austin Petersen has other coverage in other contexts, fully establishing that he had preexisting notability for other reasons quite independent of being a candidate: in fact, he already had an article before he was ever a candidate for anything. And while Kash Jackson's article is weaker, that's where you get into the "maybe the other article needs to be deleted and just hadn't been noticed yet" part.
 * Secondly, people are not notable just because they have self-published websites, or technical verification of vote totals in election tables, or press releases created by themselves or organizations they're directly affiliated with. Notability is not a thing that a person gets to give himself by self-publishing his own writing about himself, but a thing that journalists have to anoint him with by writing about him in third party news reporting — and even then, a person still doesn't get to be in Wikipedia the moment he can show one news story: he still has to show numerous news stories, passing certain conditions of geographic range (i.e. well beyond just Chicago's local media), and depth (i.e. he has to be the actual subject of an article and not just a name briefly mentioned in an article whose core subject is somebody else), and context (i.e. the coverage has to be about him accomplishing something that Wikipedia accepts as a notability claim.)
 * And finally, new comments go at the bottom of the page, not at the top above even the headline where you first put your comment. Don't ever do that again, because you can actually be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you persist in being disruptive. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The mere suggestion of wanting a page deleted because of a candidate not winning a political race is ridiculous. The candidate of this particular Wikipedia page, is a real person and has historically contributed to their past run OFFICIALLY by running verified and certified by the state of Illinois election board. this is all based on historical election information and all sources have been properly cited. David Earl Williams iii has run for Congress in the 9th Congressional district in the 2014 primary election. Which was cited on the page and is a federal election by the way covered by mainstream news sources. Federal= nationwide coverage. i.e well beyond the state of Illinois borders. Hence, The candidate David Earl Williams III already had Pre-existing notoriety way before Austin Petersen political endeavors. Willie Wilson a millionaire in Chicago has a Wikipedia page. Should his page be deleted because he didn’t win the Chicago mayoral election in 2015 & 2019? This page should remain and not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cresluer80 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please note that you do not get to "vote" more than once in an AFD discussion. You are allowed to comment as many times as you wish, but you are not allowed to preface any of your followup comments with a bolded restatement of the keep vote you've already given.
 * Secondly, it is not Wikipedia's job to keep articles about unelected candidates for political office on the basis of their candidacy itself. When it comes to politicians, our job is to keep articles about people who hold political office — people who merely run for political office, but do not win the election, get to have articles on here only if either (a) they were already notable for other reasons besides the candidacy, or (b) they can demonstrate a reason why their candidacy is much more special than other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. And all articles on here must be referenced to third party coverage in sources independent of the article topic — no matter what a person has or hasn't done, and no matter what a person says about themselves, they are not notable for it until journalists have deemed the things they've done to be important enough to do news reporting about. And even then, they still have to have a lot of that, not just one or two pieces. Whether you like it or not, that's our rules.
 * We are not "the media", and it is not our job to give "equal time" to every single candidate in every election. Our job is to look past the daily news, and figure out what people are still going to need to know in 2030: they're going to need to know about the people who held office, not the people who ran against them and lost. And nobody said that his candidacy wasn't "verified and certified" by the state elections board, either — but being verified and certified by the state elections board as a candidate is not how a person gets a Wikipedia article. A person gets a Wikipedia article by accomplishing something that passes our inclusion tests, not just by putting his name on a ballot. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Trying to have an article remove because a guy didn’t win a race, but was an official candidate historically is petty. Nobody was taking down Lori Lightfoot’s page before she ran for mayor and won. Nobody’s trying to delete Jerry Joyce’s page (who is he?) he ran for mayor and lost. Nothing else was ever known about Jerry Joyce before that. is he known outside of Illinois? No! Where is the pre-existing notoriety if you’re basing it on that?! But he has a Wikipedia page. Where is the consistency by the wiki moderators? The candidate, David Williams III Wikipedia page should remain and not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cresluer80 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lori Lightfoot had preexisting notability for other reasons, completely independent of her candidacy, and she first got an article because of those other reasons, not because of her candidacy. And once again, read WP:WAX: specifically, pay special attention to the part about how "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not...So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet." You might want to check out what's happened to both Kash Jackson and Jerry Joyce since {and also partly because) you brought them up here. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not that active on Wikipedia to know where you’re supposed to respond and not respond; but thank you for that information. Absolutely I will keep responding because according to the rules here when it comes to pages being threatened with deletion there has to be some sort of civil discourse. You’re giving me your reasons for why you think It should be deleted; I’m giving you my reasons why it should not be as a wiki contributor. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cresluer80 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Article should remain I see this word ‘pre-existing’ coming up a lot. David ran for Congress in 2014 in a heated primary. It was close. That had national attention. I have to call B.S on Lori Lightfoot. Lori was a corporate lawyer NOBODY knew about until she pulled off a miracle and won the 1st round and beat Toni 2 months later. Wikipedia is riffed with pages of well-known figures in the community and they aren’t taking those pages down. Must be a slow day to want to have this guys page deleted? Lets hope that cooler head prevailed and this page remains.
 * The rule on not voting twice includes not voting from an IP address. See Sock puppetry.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Running in a heated primary" is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia — if a person has not won election to a notable office, then he has to have been notable for some other reason completely outside of politics before you get to claim that he has preexisting notability. Whether you heard of Lori Lightfoot or not before she ran for mayor of Chicago, her article plainly demonstrates that she did have preexisting notability, by citing well over two dozen distinct sources to support content about her work prior to running for mayor. And yes, as Mpen noted, logging out and revoting as an IP is still not allowed — and it wouldn't be effective anyway, because AFD is not a ballot. We don't just count up the "votes" and give the win to whichever side technically got the bigger number of "voters": discussions are weighted by strength of argument and understanding of Wikipedia policy, and solid policy-based arguments carry a lot more weight than anonymous complaints. Even a discussion with 98 keeps and just two deletes would get the page deleted if the 98 keeps were all coming from IP numbers while the two deletes were both detailed policy-based rationales from established and reputable users. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the pagesomebody doesn’t have a life if they are really obsessed of trying to take down a page because a political public figure didn’t win a race. You might want to look at Willie Wilson‘s page. Check my IP address to if you want but my vote counts :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.87.117.189 (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)  — 96.87.117.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Voting to keep the wiki article, David Wiliams III active All this bickering aside, the candidate wiki page has always had the correct sources provided. As has been mentioned so many times in this thread; David Williams did run for Congress 2014 in a neck to neck primary, Lt. governor 2018, and alderman 2019 race. By definition of maintaining the status of the page, David Williams has pre-existing notoriety. There was a mention of former libertarian presidential and republican senate candidate, Austin Petersen. While he may run an online news blog, his website is not mainstream publication nor did anyone know of Mr. Petersen before pursuing his political aspirations. Petersen’s page should be considered for deletion by this very same logic. Mr. Williams's military service is well documented and has been verified by various mainstream publications and Great Lakes naval station. Care to argue these facts? It looks like many have tried this with the back and forth childish commenting, intentional or not. I sense a lot of tension here. Everybody please refrain from childish behavior and take a breather outside safely. As a side note, people do happen to share the same Wi-Fi. Not everything has to be a conspiracy theory. Trust me I have heard enough of that to last a lifetime. So annoying. I also didn’t know who Lightfoot was either before she won. I voted for her in the 2nd round though. I helped contribute to building Mr. Williams's page up since it’s inception. It’s my obligation to defend it. Big thanks to the wiki users who helped in making those contributions too. Hoping for the best outcome of this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happycats58 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC) — Happycats58 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * ‘’’Let the Page remain’’’ I am not making a Wikipedia account if this is how known political candidates are going to be treated. Seriously though. As someone who loves reading Wikipedia articles this is pathetic. Williams is an established political figure in Chicago. These moderators are just hating. Who would want to contribute to any article only to have them potentially removed? Reading these lame excuses from the moderators is disappointing. Ps whoever is the moderator on a power trip go rub one out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.29.27 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)  — 24.148.29.27 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * ‘’’Lets keep that page’’’ I got a life and not on Wikipedia 24/7 like some people. Ahem. I don’t know how this works. Hey don’t be a meanie. Don’t remove Williams is page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:101:497E:7420:5B07:3490:EDCF (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)  — 2601:240:101:497E:7420:5B07:3490:EDCF (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Tentative delete. A quick google search brings up this article, and a bunch of other links to different people with the same name. Information like this is probably worth having on wikipedia, but not with every candidate having their own article - it would be more suited to being listed on a page for the elections themselves. Kalethan (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The Candidate full birth name is, David Earl Williams III. The reasoning for naming the page, David Williams III was due to Wiki not allowing the full name for unknown reasons when initially created. A simple google search of his full name will bring up various articles that are properly sourced on his wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happycats58 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * According to the Wikipedia: candidates and election page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Candidates_and_elections

To quote the following:

“Many Wikipedia editors believe elections themselves are worthy of inclusion, as evidenced by the dozens of articles about elections in the project. If elections are worthy of inclusion, it logically follows that information on the candidates in those elections should be included.”

“Articles on candidates for office, like all Wikipedia articles, must meet standards of quality and verifiability.”

To continue, quoting under subsection

Elections first, then individual candidates

“As a compromise between those who would keep all candidate articles and those who would delete all articles on yet-unelected candidates, it would be preferable if articles on elections were written before articles on individual candidates. Only if and when there is enough independent, verifiable information to write a non-stub article on a candidate should one be written.

This is not a reason to delete candidate articles if the only problem is that the election article has yet to be written. Merger of the candidate articles into the election article may well improve Wikipedia.”

The wiki page, David Williams III, known by his birth name, David Earl Williams III does not warrant deletion. The suggestion of deleting a page on election outcome is moot. The page based on these rules mentioned in the quotes above and the 20 sources provided, predominantly mainstream publications, should remain active. In addition, when this is resolved I am requesting that the page name, David Williams III is changed to reflect his full name David Earl Williams III to avoid future confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happycats58 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The election is not moot though. These are past elections (a word I use loosely as a Libertarian convention is not a traditional election). The election articles have been written. Are you proposing a redirect?--Mpen320 (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * To quote Mpen320, “ The election is not moot though. These are past elections (a word I use loosely as a Libertarian convention is not a traditional election). The election articles have been written.”

To quote again the subsection titled, “Elections first then individual candidates”

“This is not a reason to delete candidate articles if the only problem is that the election article has yet to be written.”

So we are in agreement in favor of my argument. The mainstream publications have been written and sourced on the candidate wiki page; therefore the argument from the opposing side is moot. Also, stating once more, regardless of election outcome from David Earl Williams III 2014 GOP primary in Illinois 9th congressional district, the 2018 Illinois libertarian convention for nominating state wide candidates, and the Chicago 2019 Mayoral/Aldermanic race 1st round - the David Earl Williams III wiki page doesn’t merit deletion based on such.

“Are you proposing a redirect?”

Yes. I will be proposing a redirect from David Williams III to David Earl Williams III to prevent future confusion for readers. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happycats58 (talk • contribs)
 * Well a redirect doesn't solve the notability issue. I thought you meant a redirect to one of the elections in which he was a candidate.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Update: Participants and potential closers of this discussion should be aware that SPI has confirmed Cresluer80 as a direct sockpuppet of Happycats58. They did not weigh in on the anonymous IP numbers, although it also seems very likely that they would also be either sockpuppets or canvassed meatpuppets. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat. Not enough reliable coverage outside of routine campaign coverage to establish WP:GNG. All sock/meat votes need to be crossed out. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete No claim of notability.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SALT just like David Earl Williams III and per Articles for deletion/David Earl Williams III, which is the same thing. "Wiki not allowing the full name for unknown reasons when initially created" (as claimed above) is not an unknown reason and wasn't when initially created: It was deleted and re-created 8 times before being blocked, including 5 times in 3 days.  So the wrenches had to be tightened.  (This page always seems to get created right around the Illinois candidate filing period or primary election; it happened to survive 2018 to now.  It may or may not be relevant that this person has been a Democrat, then run as a Republican, then run as a Libertarian, then run for a non-partisan seat, and that Illinois is now in the petition period for independent and third-party candidates for the 2020 general elction, and a court order related to COVID-19 makes those filings much easier.)  Even if this subject ends up meeting notability standards in the future, I can't imagine why someone who so strongly believes in having an article for David Earl Williams III is establishing a multi-year pattern of violating basic rules about disclosing financial relationships with a subject and coordinating under multiple identities, and then evading multiple attempts by the not-for-profit project to block unauthorized use of its resources, then abusing its volunteers, saying that anyone that follows the not-for-profit's policy is "obsessed" and "doesn't have a life".  A 12-year pattern of behavior like this towards one specific thing can't really be dismissed as a one-time misunderstanding, can it?  Anyway: Just like before, nothing in this discussion or the article meets the thresholds for Notability (people); people above summarized it well, and now that someone has pointed it out, the experienced editors here have been able to discover other articles to nominate for deletion too. --Closeapple (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2020 (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.