Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Lindstedt


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Martin Lindstedt

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a bio of some lowgrade right-wring nutter activist. It isn't dreadfully written. But it is extremely low notability and is relying on a pastiche of news sources to create biography. I already removed one section that whilst trying to be fair breached WP:NPOV and was largely sourced from anti-fascist sites. We don't write liberal BLPs from stormfront...

As I say, this nomination is due to the article failing to meet the basic notability guideline (WP:NUTTER) and inadequate sources existing for a proper BLP. Scott Mac (Doc) 18:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep As unpleasant as I, too, find this person's politics, he does seem to meet a kind of minimal notability being mentioned and published in several places. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that there are sources unbiased and full enough to write and maintain a neutral biography?--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. But then there are not about a great number of other people with bios here, especially those involved in politics. At least this article gives some basic info about him. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you shouldn't vote keep. "Other things exist" is not accepted (or should not, by our own rules, be accepted) on WP as a valid reason; WP:N, on the other hand, is. Sources have to be independent, significant and reliable, and I doubt some mentions in a local newspaper really work. I'll expand this in more detail in my rationale below. Ironholds (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep Lindstedt is a fringe character, but a well known one - and while my sympathies don't lie with his politics (or his religion), that's hardly the point. Wikipedia is here to shed light on variety of topics, some well known, some obscure. Lindstedt, again, isn't particularly well known outside of his milieu, but he is a player within it - and Wikipedia should maintain a page on him. Deleting this page would be petty and ridiculous.
 * Delete - I was expecting to find a lot more information about this person, given the zeal with which the extreme right has embraced the internet. Alas, there's very little out there. Seems to me this guy might be notable in the fringes of the fringe at best. Definitely not notable, even for that exciting niche. It would seem that the only claim to notability here is the fact that he ran for governor in MO, but he fails WP:POLITICIAN even there. § FreeRangeFrog 22:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Martin Lindstedt may be a minor figure in Missouri politics, but he's definitely quite well-known in his southwestern Missouri local environs, and has garnered some attention nationally, as can be seen here:  Terrorism: Opposing Viewpoints (2000). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Irrelevant and largely unknown. Doesn't deserve a wikipedia page.
 * I didn't realize it was a question of whether or not someone "deserves" a Wikipedia page. Martin Lindstedt is actually very well known, among people interested in the extreme right, which I admit isn't likely to include many Wikipedia Admins, but that shouldn't be the prevailing standard. In any event, any number of far less notable people have Wikipedia pages (not to mention detailed articles on every single episode of "South Park" ever made - if articles are going to be deleted for lack of notability, there are tens of thousands which should be a higher priority than this - marking this article for deletion seems to innately constitute a deviation from a NPOV, and is pretty obviously being done in a retaliatory fashion for my involvement in the Stephen Schwartz (journalist) article). A higher standard seems to apply to notability with figures & concepts associated with the extreme right, as opposed to topics generally.  Anyhoo, Mr. Lindstedt is widely known in his part of the state.  If he were widely known in the greater NYC area, or Southern Caliofnia, or here in the Bay Area, that would presumably constitute some degree of acknowledged notability.  I'm not sure why unique and controversial characters from southwestern Missouri should be regarded as less relevant than those from more prestigious sections of the nation. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not, and if you are going to accuse WP editors of some kind of regional bias please either do it 1) more openly or 2) not at all. Wikipedia has base guidelines for notability that subjects have to fulfill; if the subject of an article does not then regardless of area it will (or should) be deleted. If the item has been mentioned in say, the New York Times rather than a local Missouri newspaper then that is a different matter entirely, but sources of equal value are given equal weight regardless of their geographical location. Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete due to the unreliable nature of the sources, most of which fail WP:RS. Without reliable sources this article fails the central point of WP:BIO and should be deleted. I'll expand per source below (noting that WP:BIO says that a person is notable if they have been mentioned in "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject" in a certain amount of detail:
 * ZabaSearch.com "Public Information, Results Summary, Lindstedt, Martin," (retrieved on February 3rd, 2009) Simply shows that he exists. Not enough evidence of notability to contribute to this article passing WP:BIO; despite what some critics seem to believe existing is not a free pass on Wikipedia.
 * The Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri. "Dual-Seedline Christian Identity Pastors," (retrieved of February 3rd, 2009) shows he is a priest; again, doesn't really contribute to notability unless he was notable for being a priest.
 * David Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. "2004 Gubernatorial Republican Primary Election Results - Missouri" (April 12, 2007) again, shows that he ran. WP:POLITICIAN discounts (in most cases) people who ran for an election/nomination as "not notable", and considering he got just over 1% of the vote I'd say this definitely applies.
 * Same applies for Show Me Freedom - The Newsletter of the Missouri Libertarian Party. "Langkraehr Files for Governor" (April 2004) and Ballot Access News. "August Primaries" (September 1, 2000)
 * Martin Lindstedt official campaign brochure. "Martin Lindstedt: Reform Party Candidate for U.S. Senate -- 2000" (2000) is not a reliable source. A hosted site run by a Missouri militia nut that has a plaintext copy of what they claim (as we have no way of proving it, and the reliability of the person hosting it is non existent) is a campaign brochure, thus proving.. that he ran. Again, not enough.
 * Neosho Daily News. Newton County races heat up (November 1st, 2008). and Neosho Daily News. Copeland gains re-election (November 5th, 2008). might work as reliable sources (although the reliability of small-town newspapers is a hotly debated thing) but they don't include significant coverage. One article simply spends two lines talking about how he intended to run but was in prison (charming) and the other mentions who won, with no comments about him whatsoever.
 * The Southwestern Missouri Libertarian. "Uncommon Sense," by Martin Lindstedt (July/August 1995 edition - retrieved on January 30st, 2009). would be nice, except the "Southwestern Missouri Libertarian" magazine is hardly a massive, reliable source. A magazine printed by a subsection of a small party in a subsection of a state really doesn't qualify as "reliable" and it certainly doesn't qualify as independent. In addition it hardly shows notability as a pastor or politician, just that he once published an article in a magazine of dubious reliability.


 * In conclusion: the references given are not reliable, independent or deep enough in their coverage of the article subject to allow him to pass WP:BIO.Ironholds (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Concur with Ironholds. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  01:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as a right wing nutter myself, I say delete. The guy is non-notable and isn't even exciting in the least bit. He did nothing. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. And even if that wasn't the case, this article has the most impressively shady reference list I have ever seen on an AfD. Trusilver  02:09, 21 February 2009 (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.