Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lucas (21st Century Ohio 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 was   keep. WP:POLITICIAN is a SNG that expands the GNG; if it meets GNG, the rest of the guidelines be damned (well, not really, but you catch my drift.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 02:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Lucas (21st Century Ohio politician)

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

This minor political candidate fails WP:POLITICIAN as he has never held public office. Tavix (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--didn't hold office, didn't receive much coverage, not notable. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It did make the papers, though. WP:GNG. DGG (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - it only made the papers because he was a candidate: per WP:POLITICIAN that doesn't give him notability, and no other notability is suggested. JohnCD (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as temporary news coverage for a specific election does not confer notability. Newspapers have a duty to report all the candidates, but putting oneself forward in an election does not therefore become automatic notability. Weak because i'm suprised someone would attempt a senate seat without doing anything notable before, but i don't know enough US politics to know if this is normal, or to find other sources. Yobmod (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments: Candidate ran for Ohio 13th district seat in the US House of Representatives, not the US Senate. It isn't unprecedented for a senate candidate to have little political experience or public recognition, especially when nominations occur, however it is substantially more common in the House, as it is the lower house. Jo7hs2 (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Unremarkable candidate, but he was a major party nominee for national office, which is not nothing. I could see this one going either way, so WP:NOTPAPER. Ray (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I am convinced by Yobmod's reasoning. ThuranX (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to this page.  Un  sch  ool  00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Tavix (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "No"? No what? I don't think I've ever seen a simple "no" like that on an AfD before.  Un  sch  ool  01:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "No" to Unschool's proposed redirect target. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I suppose it might be too much to expect humor to convey easily on the talk page.  But if that was viewed as a serious proposal for a redirect, then maybe I should just stay in the mainspace and away from the talk pages.  Un  sch  ool  02:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - losing candidate, no other political career, mentioned at Ohio's 13th congressional district, which is enough. - Biruitorul Talk 03:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hasn't acheived anything of note beyond failing to be elected. No lasting notability.  Graymornings (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep despite being minor losing candidate because:
 * 1) Received coverage in media due to candidacy, and was a major party nominee for the election. The Akron Beacon-Journal sources in the article provide significant coverage, and there is at least one seperate source that I was able to turn up in a 10-second GS that at least puts a mention in a national (USA Today) newspaper. It's just a weak bio, but it adds additional support: http://asp.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/Index.aspx?sp=OH&oi=H


 * 2) WP:POLITICIAN may say that running for office does not confer notability in itself, but it has an exception that overrides that when the subject of an article meets the standard (WP:GNG/WP:Notability) notability test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." In this case, there is sufficient coverage in multiple, reliable, independant sources that rises above the level of triviality, and therefore the "mere running/mere officeholding" test fails.


 * 2) "WP:NOTPAPER, and via that logic, cross-checked with my interpretation of WP:POLITICIAN's suggestion that meeting the standard notability test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" is sufficient alone to make a candidate worthy of inclusion even if their mere status as a candidate/official does not itself confer that notability. Losing does not automatically erase the fact that during the election, the candidate WAS notable. Therefore, the subject of the article meets the basic notability test, based on the fact that there IS such coverage.


 * 3) Now, one could argue that WP:BLP1E applies in a case where a candidate is notable only for the election, but I would argue that WP:BLP1E does not apply because the sources cover the CANDIDATE, not merely the ELECTION in this case, and therefore the sources themselves establish that the candidate is worthy of a BLP. You can see a similar argument by Guy at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_8#Alternate_wording_for_new_addition see specifically "If the external sources do not set out to be primarily about the person, then neither should our article." The obvious converse of that is that when the external sources do set out to be about the person, then the article should be about the person, not the event, negating WP:BLP1E. The argument that he was only covered because of the election should not automatically impose WP:BLP1E because the coverage did not merely mention his in discussing the election, but covered him directly. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 4) Wikipedia shouldn't have a memory hole effect with regards to losing candidates. They were notable during the election, and notability is measured at the time it is aquired, and never diminishes for WP:Notability sake even after the politician has faded from the public scene. I'm a firm believer that losing candidates should not be deleted after the election so long as they were initially notable. Jo7hs2 (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I'm suggesting a keep, the article could use some revision. I'd recommend moving the election result tables to either any Ohio 2008 congressional election article, or to the district article, and make the article more about the candidate, as the sources provide a decent bio. A simple mention of the election results would suffice, little tables are excessive. I'd be happy to fix the article if it is kept. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What does WP:NOTPAPER have anything to do with this article? That just says that Wikipedia can do things that paper encyclopedias can't, and that isn't a free pass for inclusion. Tavix (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously WP:NOTPAPER isn't a free pass for inclusion, andt I can see how my inclusion of that in my argument muddies things. I've redacted that portion of my argument so that it doesn't distract from the point of that paragraph. However, it was on my mind because it was mentioned previously, and in this case I think it is important to consider, because of the conflict that WP:BLP1E creates. On one hand, the individual would be notable under WP:Notability minus WP:BLP1E, however if one argues that WP:BLP1E applies in this case (I've already argued it doesn't), then I think it is worthwhile to note that WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTPAPER appear opposed at least in the case of losing politicians. As it pertains to politicians, WP:BLP1E creates a scenario where individuals who lose an election may be deleted for "lost" notability, which reads an awful lot like a "paper" rule based on space requirements. However, that goes far beyond this AfD, and really belongs elsewhere. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * weak keep per GNG and Ray's comments. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)\
 * To clarify, I believe that subject specific guidelines can not remove the notability of a topic, though it can clarify it. It this case the GNG are met by a country mile, so keep. Hobit (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * '''Delete - not notable. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  00:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I continue to think that major party candidate sin two party systems for national-level positions are notable. This normally presupposes a substantial political or business or professional career. There is always news coverage. There is also always a national political significance about which of them gets elected,so there's interest in knowing about both. This is more pronounced of course when the political balance is in question, but it's always there. We can deal with the numbers. DGG (talk) 22:50, 8 February 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.