Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthias Mulvey


 * 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 of the debate was delete. The JPS talk to me  23:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Matthias Mulvey
Ad for non-notable candidate (not officeholder); apparent vanity page was recreated after deletion; if he wins, I'll volunteer to write the article JChap 19:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This nom also includes an identical article under the name Matt Mulvey. JChap 19:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity/promotional article. -- Alias Flood 00:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both as per nom. --MCB 06:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is unfair that Wikipedia, which is supposed to be impartial, and without point of view (POV as you guys write), gives advantage to incumbents by allowing the promotion of their bio, election websites etc. - and not other candidates who do not currently hold elected office. If Wikipedia covers elections, it should not do so without providing a balanced view of candidates. Otherwise, Wikipedia should not even cover the elections at all. Candidates can not be non-notable - that is just completely biased language; the mere fact that a candidate is running means that they have obtained hundreds or perhaps thousands of signatures to get on a ballot - beyond that, whether or not they are notable is up to the masses; it should be up to the readers of wikipedia and the voters of a district to decide if a person is non-notable. They are all equal and must be taken seriously before the election - that is what democracy is about. There is no reason why an incumbent who is already elected should get even more promotion via wikipedia, when someone running against them (who already has more odds stacked against them), can not post a page without it being deleted. To many people (at least tens of thousands of people every election), the current State Senator is "non-notable" and they vote against him. In 2000, over 38,000 people found the current State Senator non-notable and voted against him, and he only barely won with 52% of the popular vote. The man who ran against the incumbent was well known and had done a lot of major things for his community - is wikipedia to say that only incumbents are notable candidates? Over 38,000 people a few years ago would disagree. I can understand if wikipedia only had a page about the current government and did not make mention of candidates on any of its pages - however, wikipedia does cover state and local elections, and all candidates who make it to the ballot should be allowed an equal forum. As a 501C3 non-profit organization in Florida, Wikimedia Foundation may not engage in politics (by choosing one side, whether it is a party or a particular candidate or even just choosing to support incumbent POV only during an election, that is in itself engaging in politics) - Wikimedia Foundation could lose its tax-free status; if Wikipedia does not provide a balanced view - then it can not allow election information on its website (government information is OK, but when you cover elections, you need to show balanced representation of candidates). "Non-notable" is a point of view - Wikipedia is a service for people who want to find information freely - please let your readers decide for themselves how notable a candidate is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyMA (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Both - per nom. Author probably needs to look at Candidates and elections and WP:NOT.--DaveG12345 23:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - unless the following: Article is rewritten NPOV, and article makes a claim to notability. I believe strongly that credible challengers belong on Wikipedia, but this article gives me no reason to think that he's a credible challenger. If he is, write the article so I know that. JimmyMA's unsigned comment troubles me, and may violate WP:NLT; the fact that he may be right scares me even more. Captainktainer * Talk 00:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment JimmyMA's unsigned comment is ludicrous. The prohibition he refers to relates to US Internal Revenue Code Sec. 501(c)(3) organizations intervening in elections.  Wikipedia contains a number of articles, some of which are on current and former holders of political offices.  Some of the subjects of these articles may be currently running for office.  The articles are not an attempt to intervene in the election. JChap 00:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - the intent was not to make any legal reference or to violate NLT; really, it is just a speculative comment (not "ludicrous" actually - current and former holders of political office are just that - however, it is when they are referred to as candidates as part of an election, that you must be careful to try your best to permit a fair climate for the other candidate information to be presented; this particular candidate in question is not "a current or former holder of political office" - yet his name appears on at least one wikipedia article/page) that someone may be able to make the case that a non profit organization which acts as an information source can not favor incumbent information during an election (even with the best intent to keep POV out of articles - it is hard to do that, because when you offer some information which then links to candidate campaign websites, the user clicks on it and sees almost 100% POV at that point)... Certainly, we are all regular users of Wikipedia or we wouldn't be here - Wikipedia is an important resource and I only bring this up so you can clarify your policies or find an amicable way to work with candidates to make the article work within your policies. The reason to bring this up is not to say that Wikipedia is outright wrong, but rather, that Wikipedia should modify its policies when it comes to such a fragile topic as equal rights to post information about CANDIDATES, not ELECTED OFFICIALS. It is just a matter of equality. The article can be rewritten, but it has been written 3 times and deleted 3 times... this time it was written much shorter and much more bland on purpose to try to fit your style requirements. At this point, we need your advice on how to make the article work - or in the style of wikipedia, it can be edited by your team of editors or the public anyway. It is offensive that you feel you can question if a candidate is credible - that clearly is a POV. I assure you, this candidate is a credible candidate, who regardless of whether or not he wins, will receive many thousands if not tens of thousands of votes (I am quite sure of this, given that he was required to collect 300 signatures to get on the ballot, yet he easily got over 600 in a few days; he is the top official in the state regarding building code, zoning and related rules, which means most people, elected officials and lawyers & judges involved in construction contracts or building/property management know him - which is a lot of people, and in addition he is a well known community activist with public service background) - he is a well-known candidate statewide whose first campaign fundraiser was so popular that it was standing room only. At his first speaking event, he was introduced, with full support of the party, personally by the Chairman of the Democratic State Party - the same one who introduces Ted Kennedy and John Kerry at the convention. This candidate was one of the first people to speak at this year's South Shore Democratic Caucus - he was introduced and spoke before Governor candidates Deval Patrick, Chris Gabrielli and Tom Reilly; do a search on BelowBoston.com for confirmation. He has received the outspoken and/or televised endorsement of a number of State Representatives and other officials, and has received campaign contributions. (are these elected officials wrong in publicly endorsing a candidate who may or may not be "credible" according to Wikipedia? I think these elected, popular State Reps would not put their reputation on the line for someone who is not "credible" - see the website to see a few endorsements)  The contributors range from retired people living on a budget to people in business - regardless of their means, the fact that they contribute their hard-earned money tells me they believe he is credible. So, on what grounds do you say he is not credible? At what point does a candidate become credible - only if he/she wins? If that is the case, nobody new could ever be elected to office; experience does not come from thin air - all elected officials at one point earlier in their life were not yet elected officials. If all of these details were put into a wikipedia article, it would surely be deleted as a self-advertisement. So, please feel free to modify the article to suit your needs, or perhaps I can try to modify it a bit myself, however it is only fair that if nothing else, you should permit this candidate, like any other, to have a few sentences attached to any link on your website with his name. And Wikipedia DOES allow other candidates to post a link to their POV-infused campaign websites - so it would be good if you could allow that as well, only because it is fair. I understand that Wikipedia's mission is to provide quality factual content to its readers - we agree and want to do the same - all we ask is a few sentences be permitted to describe the background of the candidate, so people have a tiny little bit better idea of who he is - as a credible candidate, who is already confirmed to be on the ballot.

I have read the Wikipedia Candidates and Elections Page (and WP NOT) - the first time I followed these instructions, and made modifications, the page was deleted... Again, I will attempt to fix the page, but please also make edits yourself too if it doesn't work for you, rather than just delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyMA (talk • contribs)

A lot more changes were made, hopefully, that will work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyMA (talk • contribs)


 * A few points:
 * You claim to be a regular user, yet your only edits are to the articles and to this AfD.
 * You seem to have confused the concepts of "credibility" and "notability."
 * You are confused on Wikipedia's policies regarding writing an article on oneself or the organization (or in this case candidate) one works for. Please read WP:AUTO.  The article is a good example of the need for this policy.
 * The course of this discussion confirms my gut feeling about these things: A subject this desperate to get his article on Wikipedia should not have one here.
 * JChap 13:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Could someone kindly point me in the direction of the election article that was written before this candidate article, per Candidates and elections, which states:"As a compromise between those who would keep all candidate articles and those who would delete all articles on yet-unelected candidates, this guideline states that articles on elections should be 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. (my italics)"
 * I cannot find it. Thanks. Also, I still do not feel the current article is "non-stub". --DaveG12345 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Please bear in mind that Candidates and elections is a proposed policy, and one that is still being written. As such, the prerequisite preceding article (according to the proposed policy) has not been written, as it has not been written for hundreds if not thousands of articles that currently offload the election onto the candidates' pages.Captainktainer * Talk 21:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That's probably why I couldn't find it then. I know it's a proposal, BTW. After all, guidelines are not set in stone either, and draft ones are cited in AfD every day, but we wouldn't get anywhere in here if we stuck to policies only, and went back to the first principles of WP:NOT every time we started a discussion. These things become adopted through use IMO. But thanks all the same. :-) FWIW, and in the absence of anything else that comes close, I believe Candidates and elections is a very workable and very equitable policy proposal, so I tend to use it as a guideline when assessing suspected nn non-incumbent candidate AfDs like this. As do, I believe, many other editors. I find it tends to sort the genuinely notable from the plain old electioneering pretty effectively, all things considered. --DaveG12345 09:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You could try Massachusetts Senate election, 2006 for a mention of this race. There is a Republican incumbent and Mulvey is the only listed Democratic challenger.  Does this mean he will be the only Democrat on the ballot for this seat in the September primary election? The article did not say (one of the basic facts that was ommitted). JChap 11:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. This is one of the reasons why I believe Candidates and elections works very well. It ensures omissions like this are unlikely to occur. When lots of work is done on one candidate, and not so much on the election as a whole, I confess I do get concerned. --DaveG12345 16:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - push this one under the Matt. BlueValour 03:20, 8 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.