Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perennial candidate


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Perennial candidate

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article appears to consist of original research. Although many sources use the term "perennial candidate", I have not been able to find any substantial reliable sources that describe or discuss the concept itself. The list of "famous perennial candidates", which takes up all but the first paragraph of the article, is a hopeless mishmash. Respected statesmen who ran serious but unsuccessful Presidential campaigns (such as Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan) are lumped in with fringe candidates like Pat Paulsen and Lyndon LaRouche who never had a chance, and in many cases never even broke 1 percent in the vote. Therefore, most of this article consists of an indiscriminate list. Unless someone can find some reliable sources describing the concept itself, not just saying that person X or person Y is a "perennial candidate", the article should be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 14:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Call the rescue squad. Good topic, dates from the early "grafitti doesn't include sources" days of Wikipedia, but the OR problems would be easy to clear up.  There are plenty of sources where political commentators have described certain people as "perennial candidates" (i.e., guys like Ralph Nader, Harold Stassen, etc. who run for high office with no chance of success, but who use the opportunity to promote their view of the issues).  Certainly an encyclopedic topic for politics, and a good structure that seeks to identify such candidates around the world.  This one should be rescued.  Mandsford (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the problem &mdash; we have plenty of sources saying that politician X or Y is a "perennial candidate", but they don't say what being a "perennial candidate" means. We don't have a reliable definition of the term. I don't see an effective method of having an article that is consistent with policy. *** Crotalus *** 21:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is one of those terms that a reader would infer from the context, in the same way that "successful candidate" might be figured out without having to ask "successful in what sense of the word?" or "what type of candidate?". William Safire wrote about it in the musings included in his political dictionary.  In order to explain it in the strictest sense, I would say that the word "perennial" has many definitions  including "3c: regularly repeated or renewed", as a synonym for recurrent; and "candidate" has many definitions, including  "1a: one that aspires to or is nominated or qualified for an office, membership, or award".  While insisting on strict definitions is a necessity in things such as a statute or a mortgage, it is not a strict policy in the writing style of a Wikipedia article. Mandsford (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: notable subject, article needs work. I'll add rescue tag.--Milowent (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - encyclopedic topic, just needs work. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I click the Google News search at the top of the AFD, and it shows that the term "Perennial candidate" in quotation marks, has 6,990 results! Anyone a major news paper refers to can be added to that list, although if it ever gets too long, perhaps a side article created, or it cut back for notable examples.  This term is quite real.   D r e a m Focus  20:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No one denies that the term exists. The problem is that we don't have any reliable sources discussing the term, as opposed to simply using it. Therefore we cannot write an article that meets Wikipedia policies on verification and original research. The sources don't even seem to have a single concept in mind when referring to "perennial candidates" &mdash; if this term has no fixed definition, and can encompass candidates as different as Henry Clay and Pat Paulsen, what good is it? *** Crotalus *** 21:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are sources talking about the term, they just aren't in the article yet, e.g.,, , . Many terms have definitions that flucuate, yet are still notable. --Milowent (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep We have the perennial issue here of failure to engage with the topic as directed by our deletion policy &mdash; no discussion, no tagging, no consideration of good alternatives to deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the nominator (Crotalus) deserves the highest of praise for nominating this article. Although I disagree with him about the article being beyond saving, he was exactly right that this was unsourced and an embarrassment to Wikipedia.  It's not original research, so much as lazy, don't-bother-to-confirm-it, writing on the part of the contributors over the last five years (8/12/04 creation.  Any idiot can nominate an article right after its created, but it takes some effort to spot a bad apple out of the hundreds of thousands of articles created in 2004.  If it hadn't been for the 911 from Crotalus, this wouldn't be getting rescued now. Mandsford (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't see why this was even considered for deletion.--camr nag 12:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources establish notability. Just needs improvement. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Define or Delete Like Potter Stewart's definition of pornography, we can't really define a perennial candidate, but we know it when we see it. I appreciate everyone's views for why the article should remain, but I think the biggest problem is that the topic eludes a valid definition that would reasonably define who belongs and who doesn't.  This means that each editor can include or delete a name based on their own feelings with the only requirement for inclusion being that the candidate ran more than once.  I haven't reviewed the edit history in depth, but the lack of a good definition means that this article could easily become involved in an edit war over one name or another.  There seems to be some good discussion going on over the inclusion of several names, but I doubt that these discussions will ever be resolved due to the root problem.  I like the idea of the article, but it's impractical in it's current form.  I say define it better or drop it. AlanK (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think the definition is quite clear, even though it could establish some set of "rules" to clarify further. If you don't agree with the subjects included, then that's a discussion to be taken to the article's talk page.--camr nag 19:24, 15 October 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.