Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tarrant


 * 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. Grand master  ka  03:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard Tarrant
Candidate for the Republican nomination for US Senator from Vermont. Prod was removed to the talk page with the comment "I removed the proposal to delete the Article on Richard Tarrant. The delete proposal is most likely a "HACK"." I don't know the meaning of the word "hack" in that context so I don't know how to respond. Anyway, four reaons were offered for why the article should be kept. My comments appear in parentheses:

JChap (talk • contribs) 00:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) "Richard founded one of Vermonts most important companies." (see third point for reason why this isn't all that impressive)
 * 2) "Richard is running for US Senante in 2006." (Candidates aren't notable in and of themselves per WP:BIO
 * 3) "Richard's campagin is one of the leading advertisers in Vermont." (Maybe the article should be merged to Advertising in Vermont?)#"Richard was involved in Vermont's largest accounting scandal." (He testified and wrote an op-ed piece about it. The article does not claim he was charged.)
 * Comment: A prod can be removed for ANY reason. Explaining an AfD by posting a rebuttal to the person who removed a prod is NOT the best way to explain why an article should be deleted - that person may not have come up with the best set of reasons.  And certainly is unlikely to have come up with a complete set of reasons. John Broughton 14:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely correct about a sophmoric nomination that was an ill-conceived attempt at humor. The reason why the article should be deleted is that while of his numerous accomplishments each comes close, he has not done any one thing that would qualify him under WP:BIO.  His basketball accomplishments were in Division II.  Cofounding a company that is later sold for $1.2 billion is impressive, but $1 billion companies are fairly common these days.  There are many other high-achievers who do not have articles here.  As for his campaign for Senate (and I know we disagree on this), I think the 100 years test is appropriate.  With few exceptions, no one in 100 years is going to care about a candidate for Senate unless he wins.  The notablility of candiates is ephemeral.  It is better to cover them on the campaigns wikia or on Wikinews than here. JChap (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, non-stub article per Candidates and elections, and cofounding a company that sold for over $1 billion is notable in my book. Being a US Senate candidate in addition nudges it over the line. --Dhartung | Talk 01:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Firstly, this is a non-stub article with verified content. Secondly, a US Senate candidate is notable in nature. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  01:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but recreate if he wins the nomination or does something spectacular between now and then. Please note that he is a primary election candidate, and therefore less than notable than your average regular senate election cadidate. Peyna 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I like Fagles' logic better; keep it for now, delete it later if needed. Peyna 02:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - senate candidate + non-stub = keep. If this article did not exist, this information would need to be in Vermont U.S. Senate election, 2006.  There is little doubt that he will win the nomination; if he loses, the article can be deleted at that point.--Fagles 02:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Senate candidates are notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Let me emphasize that being a candidate is not the reason for keeping, but rather the multiple occasions of hitting the news with scandal and ongoing (yes) suspicions.  His name is moderately frequently mentioned with some hostility on left wing radio.  Geogre 03:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep While I strongly disagree with the rationale "a US Senate candidate is notable in [sic] nature" for myriad reasons that are beyond the scope of this discussion, I do have to say that his other contributions (as noted and sourced in the article, as well as the whisperings referenced by Geogre) give me reason to believe he at least deserves a footnote. — NM  Chico  24  [[Image:Flag of New Mexico.svg|25px]] 05:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per NMChico24. -- Jared Hunt July 29, 2006, 06:34 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It would appear being a senate candidate is notable, and the article is long enough to warrant it's existence if the aforementioned point is considered borderline. Black-Velvet  06:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Many brushes with notability, like he hangs on the fringes of famous people.  He's not involved with scandal, but writes about it.  He's not an elected official, but wants to be.  More to the point, unless there's been an article about the election race itself, I'm seeing a violation of WP:C&E which states elections first, then the candidate.  And if this is an article about a candidate, then it needs to be pared down to focus on election issues, not his general bio, per WP:C&E.  WP:C&E is only a guideline right now, but I propose it's better than guessing and hemming and hawing.  Tychocat 07:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is indeed an article about the election race itself: Vermont U.S. Senate election, 2006--Fagles 16:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a guy who founded a company later sold for $1.2 billion. It's very likely, with that kind of money, that he'll continue to be in the news.  And he's odds-on favorite to be the Republican nominee for the Senate seat in the November 2006 general election, so he's not exactly a fringe candidate.  John Broughton 14:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This delete proposal should be removed immediately.  Through his advertising campaign Richard Tarrant is on Vermont TV and Radio pervasively. This alone warrants the article.  I argue that the delete proposal, is an attempt to discredit the article, because it was added hours after information about Richard Tarrant's oversight failure in an accounting scandal was added to the article.  J23 17:43, 29 July 2006
 * Just a friendly reminder to always assume good faith. Peyna 22:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Unless something drastic happens, he'll be the Republican candidate for VT-Sen. That is more than notable. --waffle iron talk 17:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as he was the founder of notable corporation. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - People go to Wikipedia as a source for NPOV information on topics relevant to their lives. A Senate candidate from Vermont is noteworthy, at least to folks from Vermont. Amusing that we have Criteria for speedy deletion but apparently no Criteria for speedy retention.  Williamborg (Bill) 22:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Joy of joys - found it. There is a Speedy keep. Unfortunately the criterai can't be applied here, but we can always debate revised/expanded "Speedy keep" criteria there. Williamborg (Bill) 23:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, criteria for speedy retention would be a situation where it is very obvious that it will be a unanimous keep, there are no delete votes and the nominator withdraws their nomination. For the moment, Tychocat is the only remaining delete vote. Peyna 22:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Certainly with only 3 federal representatives for the state (2 Senators and 1 Rep), the candidates for those offices are quite notable to residents of Vermont. --waffle iron talk 22:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It is to be noted this is not a vote, but a discussion of issues.  The fact that Tarrant is notable to those in Vermont does not make him notable to someone in California, which is a given.  If the only factor to notability is that someone, somewhere, might find it interesting, this gives inclusion a whole new meaning and requires a rewriting of WP:BIO et al.  However the article ends up, I do not see my points refuted.  Shrug.  Life goes on.  Tychocat 11:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems a bad faith nomination for me. Hektor 06:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. He's notable anyway from his business career and press coverage. --Mereda 15:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is certainly as important as his Senate race opponents. 71.241.141.57 22:32, 31 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.