Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Simon


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 21:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ellen Simon
Originally deleted as A7, citing Candidates and elections proposed guideline. Recreated. Proposed for deletion under A7 again, but primary point of Candidates and elections has been met: first an article on the election, then articles about the candidates. So, whilst agreeing this is A7 in terms of the article itself, I have questions about the notability in general of the subject herself. So it comes here, with no opinion from me.➨  ЯEDVERS  20:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I added the speedy tag after noticing it had already been A7'd just a few days ago.  But I'm a little confused by your remarks.  I can't find any article on the election -- there isn't one linked from the Ellen Simon article, or from the incumbent's article, or from Arizona's 1st congressional district, where she's running.  I also don't understand what you mean about the article being A7 but not the subject herself.  Could you elaborate? - David Schaich 21:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Special:Whatlinkshere/Ellen_Simon - a check to be done before any speedy delete. It reveals United States House elections, 2006, United States House elections, 2006 complete list and Arizona United States House elections, 2006 as linked articles. As for WP:CSD's A7: this is quite specific - it requires an assertion of notability. So an article about someone notable can be deleted if the article doesn't even try to say why. At the same time, an article about someone who has no notability can't be deleted if the article gives good cause for why they are notable. For instance, I have no idea who the current president of India is; but they are notable for being president of India. If the article about them never mentioned that fact or any of their achievements, it could be deleted. If an article about somebody else provided proof that the person in question was president of India, even if I hadn't heard of them, it would still be grounds to keep. It's a fine line, and no reflection on you as speedy nominator. That's why we have admins elected for their experience in these things and AfD as a process of the community to discuss them in case better experts exist. Hope this helps! ➨  ЯEDVERS  21:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ah, I see. I was looking for a first-district-specific article.  Thanks for clarifying. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 22:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Neither United States House elections, 2006 complete list nor Arizona United States House elections, 2006 are "campaign articles" in the sense that was meant by the Candidates and elections proposed guideline. They simply list who is running.  Simply listing candidates does not make something a NOT a "campaign article" - that would be an article that actually discusses the backgrounds and differing positions of the two major party nominees at a minimum. John Broughton  |  Talk 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep First of all, in rebuttal to the above, the primary point of Candidates and elections has not been met. Yes, the policy states: "first an article on the election", but the very next paragraph starts with the following statement: "This should not be used as a reason to delete candidate articles".  Secondly, she won a five-way primary for the Democratic nomination in her district with almost triple her nearest opponent (i.e., she is no "sacrifical lamb" candidate).  Finally, the latest poll has her ahead of the incumbent (see here).  Yes, the article (clearly) needs beefing up, but that's no reason for deletion.  I'll volunteer to help beef it up -- but only after this is resolved (I don't want to waste my time).  It's three weeks before a pivotal election with national, and international, implications.  Let's slow down on the deletion of articles on competitive candidates. -- Sholom 14:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Well, to quote the whole sentence, "This should not be used as a reason to delete candidate articles with plenty of third-party verifiability of notability if the only problem is that the election article has yet to be written. This is clearly not (yet) the case here, where there is barely an assertion of notability, much less verification.  Please do your best to try to find reliable sources establishing Simon's notability as a major local political figure per WP:BIO; I'll revisit my vote once you've done so. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 15:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Major local political figure?" She won a five-way primary.  Neverthless, I found some info (none of from her campaign literature) and added it in.  (I'll sure hate to see this deleted now!) -- Sholom 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please don't mistake this for a vote or similar. This is just a discussion about the inclusion of this article in our encyclopedia. It is a request for comments on the article as it stands. No offence to the writer of the article or supporters/detractors of the candidate in question is implied or meant. This is simply a process that exists to improve Wikipedia. I'm simply looking for people to advise me/others on this article's place. Cup of tea, anyone? ➨  ЯEDVERS  19:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Umm, with all due respect, this AfD process IS a vote. If you'd just wanted comments, you might have considered Requests for comment. And as for supporters/detractors of the candidate, I wouldn't recognize her or her opponent if I met the in the street and I'd feel exactly the same way if she had won a five-way Republican primary.  I find it embarrassing that three weeks before the election, wikipedia editors are considering deleting an article on someone who has close to 50-50 odds of being elected to Congress.  I realize that "usefulness" isn't a criteria for which biographical articles stay and don't, but with thousands of truly worthless articles already in wikipedia and incredible amounts of cleanup and other fixing needed, exactly why should time be spent debating keeping a biography that clearly is (a) not a vanity page, (b) not a soapbox/campaign page; and (c) actually useful to tens of thousands of voters in this Congressional district?  John Broughton  |  Talk 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think any major party candidate who is in a very close race (criteria:  listed at United States House elections, 2006) should have an article if there is not a campaign article on that specific race.  Notability has, at its core, the purpose of keeping out articles that aren't useful. This article IS useful.  John Broughton  |  Talk 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: For numerous reasons already laid out. --Cjs56 02:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Don't delete candidate articles, because Wikipedia is not paper. To do so under a proposed guideline strikes me as especially ill-advised. -- Zantastik  talk  06:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per John Broughton |  Talk, above.  Smeelgova 04:41, 18 October 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.