Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Murphy (politician)


 * 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 keep. – Avi 17:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Murphy (politician)
Another election candidate. Non-notable. Delete.BlueValour 16:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep He is the official Democratic nominee, and he has the funds to mount a credible challenge against the incumbant, Mike Fitzpatrick. He is also an Iraqi War Vet running for Congress. That makes him notable. --Asbl 17:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry I disagree. We have a concensus on here that candidates are not notable (we are also weeding out UK candidates). There are, sadly, very many Iraqi War Vets. BlueValour 17:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But only a small fraction of them are running for Congress. Are you going to put Paul Hackett up for an AfD? --Asbl 17:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely you aren't seriously suggesting that Murphy is as notable as Hackett! (Are you?) wikipediatrix 23:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. They are both veterans of the Iraqi war who then became candidates for Congress. The only difference is that Hackett has lost, and Murphy is still running. --Asbl 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Some candidates or campaigns receive so much attention that they are notable, even in losing. That campaign gathered a huge amount of press, not just in the district, but in the national press, which makes it notable. The point is that merely being a candidate (and gathering some local press for being one) is not sufficient to be considered notable, and right now we're seeing a lot of articles for people who have no claim of notability other than that they're running for something. Fan1967 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Winning a primary and being a major party's nominee is certainly notable. --Asbl 05:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a ridiculous policy and it's unhealthy for democracy. If you consider Patrick Murphy non-notable, then what the hell is notable about Mike Fitzgerald?  There are certainly many notable Congressmen, but he's not exactly one of them.  Why is Wikipedia arbitrarily deciding that US Congressmen are all notable regardless of whether they've done anything notable but their opponents are not. I especially don't like being told by some British wanker that Federal candidates aren't notable.  What do you know about anything American anyway?  You can't even spell valour. Ortcutt 05:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I just checked that the challenger in my district doesn't have an article (yet). Despite the fact that I'll vote for him, I don't think he deserves an article, either. (As an aside, I might be willing to support a policy change to keep such articles if someone could arrange a self-destruct mechanism to delete them the day after the election unless they win. The problem is that these things get created and, like the campaign signs by the side of the road, the people who put them up never clean them up afterward.) Fan1967 17:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea, Fan1967 Bwithh 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Ardenn  19:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom--Nick Y. 21:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was under the assumption from past AfDs that consensus leaned towards major party candidates for national legislatures were worthy of inclusion.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 23:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The concensus from recent AFDs has been not to include candidates, there are many thousands across the world, and often the entry is of the press-release type rather than being encyclopaedic. A further problem that has developed is that outlined by Fan1967 above, we get left with large numbers of dated articles that do WP a disservice. BlueValour 23:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Honest question: I've missed that, which ones? Were they major party nominees for nat'l legislatures?  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 23:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they come through here, regularly, as someone finds them. It's often a fight when someone insists on trying to argue that being the fourth-party (can't discriminate against the Greens and Libertarians, now, can we?) candidate in a race two years ago makes someone notable. Fan1967 02:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 23:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. For one thing, being a candidate for Federal office in a general election certainly makes someone notable.  Second, do we really want Wikipedia to be in the business of deciding that incumbents are notable but challengers aren't.  That's not really serving the public.  Third, there are many wikipedia pages for Congressional candidates, like Nick Lampson, Francine Busby, Diane Farrell, Ortcutt 01:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The reason there are so many WP articles for candidates is that they have put them there and we haven't found them yet! Unless those candidates are notable in their own right, and I am not prejudging this, an AfD will follow. We are an encyclopaedia and record notable events. If the candidate wins they become notable by definiton. It is the candiadtes who are playing politics not us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlueValour (talk • contribs).
 * You seem to be missing the point that being a candidate for federal office in and of itself makes them notable people. I don't understand how you can't grasp that. Ortcutt 05:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many, many people who do not share that viewpoint. I live in a district where the Democratic candidate for congress is usually whoever volunteered to be the sacrificial lamb against a safe incumbent. Is that candidate notable? No, he's just being a good sport on behalf of the party, becuase the guy who did it the last two elections decided it was someone else's turn. Fan1967 13:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Any US citizen can be a candidate for Federal Office. E Pluribus Unum. Hmm, the things they make political interns these days. Why, I remember a time when... herm never mind Bwithh 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Any US citizen can be a candidate, but that doesn't mean that they are. Beyond that, he's not just a candidate.  He's the winner of the 2006 Democratic Primary election for PA-08. Ortcutt 01:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Any American of legal age for the office in question with no disqualifications can run for the United States House of Representatives or any other office. This candidate, however, got the nomination for the office from one of the two major parties. This is a bit more specific than that. I support deletion, however of those articles on candidates that failed in the primary.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What about third parties? Fourth? We had a by-election a few months back in suburban Ottawa where four of the six candidates had articles here. Fan1967 02:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hence, major parties. Some countries have two, some three, and so on. In Canada, I would argue the Libs, Cons, NDP, and BQ as "major."  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 02:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Boy, are you gonna get hate mail from the Greens, for participating in the campaign to keep them down ;-) Not to mention the Christian Heritagers, the PPP, etc. Uh, tell me, who decides what party is major? Fan1967 02:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That would need some discussion. Probably a tradition of possessing seats in said body, but yea, that would need some talk.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 02:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, he is a current major party congressional candidate . Bring back up for AFD after November if he loses, but not now. KleenupKrew 11:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that many (probably most) mere candidates are neither credible candidates nor important people. Downticket candidates, sacrificial lambs, and crank third-party or independent candidates don't deserve pages. However, there are surely some major races (in the U.S., governor, Senate, and highly competitive House races) for which a major candidate should be kept. Just a few weeks ago, I was disappointed to find that Jon Grunseth (disgraced 1990 candidate for Minnesota governor) lacked a Wikipedia page, even though he was part of an interesting chapter in Minnesota political history. 14:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bschak (talk • contribs).
 * Keep. He's a major candidate and is getting interesting attention. I'm pretty sure he was in a WaPo article not long ago about the Iraq vets the Dems are putting up for Congress, as well, although I can't confirm that now. Article is long enough to be more than just a stub, and is fairly dense with relevant (not spammy) information, which together should also weigh in its favor. Captainktainer * Talk 21:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. like Asbl said Winning a primary and being a major party's nominee is certainly notable. grazon 15:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is a lot of discussion of notability - I come down on the side of major party nominee for Congress is notable. But more important this encyclopedia is supposed to be helpful. And the entry for Partick Murphy is that. What other criteria do we need? Tomkraj@charter.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.117.142.72 (talk • contribs) . (moved and reformatted by Asbl 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC))
 * Keep - winning a major-party primary for a US congressional district is certainly notable.  What possible purpose is served by deleting this article?  After all, Wikipedia is not paper.  FWIW, "'Patrick Murphy' congress" gets 216,000 google hits -- Sholom 19:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are less than 400 candidates per year (to be more specific, 600 to 700 per two-year election cycle) who (a) are running for the U.S. House or U.S. Senate (as opposed to a state, county, or city/town elected position, of which there are tens of thousands), and (b) have won their respective major party primary. John Broughton 20:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Major party candidate for substantial office Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Why not? There is lots of space on Wikipedia and apparently people who care about this entry.  I'd argue further that entries attracting debate are particularly worth keeping so they can evolve.  Rx: Shape this article up though, or I will say delete it.  It's written very badly.Mc4932 05:17, 6 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.