Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Scott


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 22:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Scott
The fine people of Wakefield, Massachusetts chose him as their selectman, but his only other claim to fame is that he is one of the Republicans vying for the honor of being trounced by Ted Kennedy this fall. He is not even the nominee yet and, as a mere candidate whose only prior service was on a smallish city's board of selectmen, fails WP:BIO and Candidates and elections. However, it is commendable that "a strong sense of civic duty was instilled in Kevin from a very young age by his father Jim Scott, who ... to this day is still one of the first people to talk to if a candidate is serious about winning an election." JChap (talk • contribs) 00:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete just hearsay in the article. no solid facts presented. --Ageo020 01:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is clearly promotional in tone. A selectman is not notable. A candidacy is not notable. Especially not a candidacy for a primary. Especially not the Republican primary in Massachusetts. If the article is kept it needs a radical POV-ectomy and careful watching, since there is at least a possibility of campaign staff involvement in the editing of the article. I note too that the article cites no sources inline, and the only sources mentioned, external links, are Scott's campaign site, and a site which merely presents politician's stated views (i.e. essentially self-authored); in the case of an intrinsically controversial topic, this kind of site can't be considered to meet reliable source guidelines. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: I very rarely say "per" anyone, but per Dpbsmith.  Geogre 02:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete When he wins the primary for a Senate seat, he'll be deserving of an article, not until.Lesqual 10:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, last I heard this was America and anyone was allowed to run for office. I didn't realize one had to have a "claim to fame" to run. Also, I believe the original Wikipedia article was very much "stating the facts" in a non-promotional way. Then, certain individuals from the Chase campaign made their way onto this site and altered the article to show Kevin in a negative light. Let us not forget how this battle began. 10:19, 28 July 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.17.119 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment This is not America. This is the Internet. There are contributors from around the world that make up Wikipedia. --DarkAudit 14:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Anyone may be allowed to run for office, but you have to be notable to have a biography on Wikipedia. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"His lack of speaking ability as well as the fact he was a registered Democrat until 2001 are two factors that cost him the endorsement of his party at the state convention in April and are likely to cost him the primary in September, according to state GOP insiders" Sir, please explain to me how his "lack of speaking ability" is a fact. That is a matter of opinion, YOUR opinion. Also, please site your sources for saying that he is likely to lose the primary in September "according to state GOP insiders". Your information is highly partisan and opinionated, and appears to be written in an effort to form a "smear campaign" against Kevin. Until you can write a reasonable article that doesn't take your own personal opinion and try to pass it off as fact, I will continue to edit this article as I see fit. 16:40, 28 July 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.67.124 (talk • contribs)
 * Redirect. I note that the nomination and comments above are based on a version of the article that was significantly altered (arguably, vandalized) by a pro-Scott partisan 65.96.17.119 on July 28th. I just reversed that user's changes - AGAIN; he/she did the same thing on July 27th, which I reverted.  So yes, what was there was highly promotional and unsourced, but it wasn't the "real" article. John Broughton 14:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record: (1) I did NOT write those words, and they are NOT my opinion.  I personally don't care whether Scott wins or loses the Republican nomination; (2) You just deleted the ENTIRE campaign section in the Kevin Scott article, not just the words you just cited, even though the rest of the section was clearly NPOV (and I just reverted your edit, which was vandalism); (3) Discussions about text in an article belong on the talk/discussion page of the article, not on a project page about deleting the article.  I will not respond further, here, to such postings, but will be happy to do so at Talk:Kevin Scott.  Please post there.  John Broughton 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 17:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Big  top  ( tk | cb | em | ea ) 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete "Even though Scott went to a large number of GOP town committee meetings all through the fall of 2005 and winter of 2006, his lack of speaking ability[citation needed] as well as the fact he was a registered Democrat until 2001{[citation needed}} are two factors that cost him the endorsement of his party at the state convention in April and are likely to cost him the primary in September, according to state GOP insiders.[citation needed]" This entire paragraph is based entirely on heresay and is written in such a way that was quite possibly intended to intentionally "smear" Mr. Scott.
 * Delete as failing WP:BIO Bucketsofg✐ 23:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a major party contender in a Senate race. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 30 July 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.