Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohio second congressional district other candidates


 * 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 no consensus; keep. This defaults to keep; do not cite it to support/oppose a future merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ohio second congressional district other candidates
A bunch of deleted articles have been recreated in this space, which sort of makes a mockery of the term "deletion". I think, in the 200+ years that it's been a state, more than these hanbdful of insignificant fellows have run for representative of Ohio's second district. Some of them may have even been nominated. Not these guys though. -R. fiend 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Ohio second congressional district election, 2005. I'm betting some of the photos are copyvios as welll. Crunch 20:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and greatly reduce. They lost; they are no longer notable. And get rid of images if they're copyvio. Daniel Case 20:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, one image (Katz) is clear copyvio; Austin is likely as the page claims it's from the Cincinnati Enquirer. I don't have the time to deal with this right now, alas. Daniel Case 20:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Also rans at the state house level are non-encyclopedic. Ruby 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is at the federal level. --Calton | Talk 02:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Looks like an attempt to preserve individual articles already AFD'ed. See:
 * Articles for deletion/Steve Austin (politician) (keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Douglas E. Mink (delete)
 * Articles for deletion/Jeff Morgan (Ohioan) (delete)
 * Articles for deletion/Arthur Stanley Katz 2 (delete)
 * Articles for deletion/David R. Smith (delete)
 * And considering the one "keep" result had 8 deletes, 2 keeps, and 1 merge, one has to wonder how the closing admin came to the peculiar decision to call it a "keep". --Calton | Talk 02:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete introduction demonstrates lack of notability --Ajdz 06:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The people who appear here had their original articles deleted.  One suggestion was creating a "minor candidates" page, which I have done.  And now I find that's up for deletion to.  This page exists as part of my effort to supply a complete record of the congressional race in the Second District.   PedanticallySpeaking 18:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Complete? You call this complete? You left out the staff members of each of the candidates, as well as the poll workers, the locations of the polling places, as well as details of each of the concession speeches. Far from complete it seems to me. -R. fiend 19:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

'This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!' Johnleemk | Talk 08:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This clearly needs more discussion, considering PedanticallySpeaking's explanation. Johnleemk | Talk 08:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, valuable step towards comprehensive coverage of congressional elections. Kappa 10:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete election-cruft that does not require mention in an ancyclopedia. Kappa, when will you be writing up that comprehensive election coverage for every single election ever held (don't forget the 1285 election for the Council of Ten in Venice)? This sets an untenable and unsustainable precedent. Eusebeus 15:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone produces verifiable election coverage for the Council of Ten in Venice 1285, I will certainly not betray our donors by voting to delete it. Kappa 18:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as good faith action by creator to take advice about merging the previous AfD'ed articled into one. Turnstep 18:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material (CSD G4). Tagged. SYCTHOS talk  20:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete acknowledging that this is in good faith, it is still the case that none of these people are notable beyond having failed to be elected to an office, which means (per WP:BLP) that none of them are notable. Sorry, the c ompleteness argument is not persuasive: simply listing the losers in the article for the election fulfills the encyclopaedic purpose of this article.  The problem with losing candidates is thet most information on them comes from their own camp, and no further information is released after the election.  Information on such people is generally functionally unverifiable from reliable sources. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 21:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as recreations of previously-AfD'd articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Crunch and deal with copyvio as required. No reason to wipe out information on this important election. -- Mwalcoff 01:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, previously deleted articles. (Also see Just zis Guy, you know?'s comments on notability and lack of verifiability.) - Randwicked Alex B 03:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep - as per Kappa. Keep necessary to show good faith to Pedantically speaking, as well as being a good idea in and of itself.  --  Geo Swan 17:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * delete as non-notable and non-completable, or possible rename/move/merge. It's impossible and/or rather uninteresting to cover all candidates of all elections of all time everywhere, even if only on national level. If one wants to do it anyway, there are other places to do so. - Magnus Holmgren 23:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - completely harmless inclusion - somebody somewhere at some point might want to know about these people, and who knows some of them might go on to do other things in which case we have the starting point for a future article if we leave this in; if you've voted delete on this, really, haven't you got anything better to do? SP-KP 00:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, for some of us, voting on deletion is our main contribution to Wikipedia. So no. - Randwicked Alex B 01:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think one of the biggest weaknesses of the wikipedia is the {afd} procedure. When I look at some of the nominations which generate discussion what I find is the same bunch of regulars.  And many of those regulars show no interest in following procedure, or even giving the articles a fair reading.
 * Some of the regular habitues have personal axes to grind. Some regulars use the {afd} fora to suppress information that they regard as "anti-American", without regard to its verifiability or how neutrally it is expressed.
 * Many regulars base their vote on whether they regard the article as POV. Some even base their nomination on their opinion that an article is POV, even though the wikipedia deletion policy says that the correct response to a perception that an article shows a biased POV is to raise that issue on the article's talk page.
 * I think the wikipedia would be improved if steps were taken so that there was a monthly cap on how many times per month people could vote in the {afd} fora. This would rein in those regulars who use the fora as a venue to trot out their personal prejudices.  Regretably, this would also cap those responsible wikipedians who come regularly to the {afd} fora, and actually read the articles nominated for deletion, and make an independent choice every time they vote.  But that would be better than the current situaiton.  --  Geo Swan 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per CSD:G4 recreation of deleted material. Stifle 14:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See also the discussion on Articles for deletion/Peter Fossett. PedanticallySpeaking 17:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep article created as a compromise that was suggested. Jcuk 20:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article created as a compromise, in order to help Wikipedia's coverage of American politics. This article should probably use a better title, however, especially since this office is up for election again in less than a year. Academic Challenger 21:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is still a hotly contested seat on the Republican side; Schmidt may face some of these candidates again this year. --JamesB3 02:22, 31 January 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.