Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cavlan


 * 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  - The consensus is that the subject has received non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, thus demonstrating notability. (non-admin close) S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Cavlan

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

Local activist. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As a candidate for U.S. Senate he was profiled by Minnesota Public Radio. That fact establishes notability as coverage by an independent, mainstream news agency. Since the two-party system seeks to diminish any attention given to third-party candidates, I think we at Wikipedia ought to counter that force by giving due attention to alternative candidates.--Appraiser (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not every candidate is notable. Exactly where the threshhold for notability lies is unclear, but I think its fair to say that someone whose sole claim to fame is getting 0.5% of the vote falls well beneath it. --IdiotSavant (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The threshold for notability is non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, something which Appraiser has addressed and you have not. Sincerely, Skomorokh  02:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, I am not seeing evidence of non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable publications. JBsupreme (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep in light of publications located by Skomorokh. JBsupreme (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Note that I originally closed this as delete but am letting it run due to questions regarding the close.  Wizardman  21:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The Minnesota Public Radio interview is one third-party source, but I see virtually nothing else. Like JBsupreme, I don't see multiple reliable publications. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 22:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Skomorokh's sources. I'm not too certain about the actual depth of coverage in said sources, but there are just enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 23:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'd be more convinced that his Minnesota public radio "profile" is something special if he managed more than 0.5% of the vote! Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note I have added 5 references from reliable sources to the previously unreferenced article. At least two of them are solely devoted to the subject, and all contain non-trivial coverage. This ought to be an open and shut case. Regards, Skomorokh  23:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Skomorokh's assessment on this -- and I reject the suggestion that a receiving a low percentage of the vote should be considered prima facie evidence of non-notability. Cgingold (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge into article on election. All of this guy's notability seems to stem from having been a candidate for office, and focus exclusively on his role as a candidate. That makes him, as a failed candidate, suspect under WP:ONEVENT. RayAYang (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A lifetime of political activism and participation in several elections is so far from one event it's not even funny. Please address why the non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is insufficient to establish notability. Skomorokh  15:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Being a perennial failed candidate doesn't help your case, you know. As for your "non-trivial" coverage, let us go down the list of current references.
 * Article entitled "US Senate" in local newspaper.
 * Article entiteld "Senate hopeful calls for probe of Wellstone crash," in another local paper.
 * "Voter's Guide," in one of the aforementioned local newspapers.
 * "Green party member to seek Senate seat"
 * "'Somebody had to stand up': Greens' candidate wants U.S. to shift course."
 * Statewide election results for US Senate.
 * All of these articles are dated prior to the 2006 election. I repeat, for the disinterested reader's consideration, my assertion that this guy's "notability" springs solely from having been a failed candidate for office, which, as a matter of more or less settled consensus (see, WP:ONEVENT and WP:POLITICIAN) is insufficient to merit inclusion. Stick his data in an article on the Green Party in Minnesota, or an article concerning the 2006 election, and have done. RayAYang (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Skomorokh. The subject's notability goes beyond one event. ~ Eóin (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A LexisNexis search of Minnesota news sources turns up 48 results, including a 600 word profile of Cavlan in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. About half of the articles are related to his 2006 campaign. I'm pretty sure this qualifies as non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Benjaminx (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:RS. Notability does not appear to be in doubt. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as the sources cited in Michael_Cavlan indicate sufficient coverage of Michael Cavlan in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of his notability per the general notability guideline, per the comment by Benjaminx, and per the other cogent arguments for retention presented above. John254 00:45, 29 July 2008 (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.