Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Sarvis


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Robert Sarvis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

He fails WP:POLITICIAN as well as the notability threshold. Most of the citations are primary or non-reliable sources. Most of the coverage about him is referential, not significant. What "significant" coverage he does receive is routine campaign coverage. Should be deleted or redirected to Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nomination Withdrawn. Seeing how drawn-out this discussion has become, with no clear consensus being formulated, and seeing the increasing amount of coverage Sarvis is getting, I've decided to withdraw the nomination. Will possibly re-assess at a futute date, after the election.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep: Mr. Sarvis is an official candidate for Governor, according to Virginia's State Board of Elections. He is not some weirdo fringe candidate, but an official, qualified, legitimate candidate, even if he is a little different from the more mainstream candidates. I think that it is only fair to keep the Sarvis Wikipage and improve on it as more on him comes out. Emeraldgirl (talk) Keep: Robert Sarvis is a notable person in the Libertarian Party. As the article notes, he is only the 4th minor party candidate to be on the ballot in 40 years. I see no issues with the citations. Some are from libertarian-leaning sources, but I don't think it has excessive bias. PrairieKid (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources and the article being almost wholly selfreferenced. May prove to be premature as the election progresses, but we shall see... Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013. A redirect is an appropriate outcome for a candidate for statewide office that does not otherwise meet WP:N (WP:POLOUTCOMES). Enos733 (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: I believe this article, Robert Sarvis, meets WP:POLITICIAN. Sarvis is recognized by the Virginia State Board of Elections as an official gubernatorial candidate for the Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013, and was recognized as an official state senate candidate in 2011. I also think Sarvis meets notability threshold because, as mentioned previously, he is the 4th minor party candidate to obtain ballot access in his state in the last 40 years. At this stage in the election cycle, I think a redirect or deletion is disingenuous; however, deletion or a redirection may be suitable after the election. I am a contributor to this article. Reallibertyforall (talk) Antarctica4Liberty 08:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Enos. I also point out that this article may violate WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:HAMMER, and we don't even know who is opponents may be.  Being famous as a libertarian is akin to being famous for being related to someone. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I personally support the inclusion of major party candidates for an office of national importance (including governor of a state), though this has been rejected several times as a general consensus. I would not extend it to a losing candidate for office in a state legislature as he was in 2011. I have a very broad view of political notability, but that's way too far to be sensible. I would also  not extend it to a minor party candidate in the US two party system, unless there is a strong showing of national level notability. There is not here. This illustrates the problem with the GNG; the reliance upon sourcing throws the decision open to the interpretation of substantial and independent coverage, and that's always open to interpretation, and to PR efforts in behalf of someone.  A reliance upon determinable intrinsic factors with the GNG as a safety provision for exceptional circumstances makes more sense to me, and the more I see articlea like this the more strongly I feel it.  DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Enos and Bearian. A case of WP:TOOSOON. No non-routine significant coverage of him, has not been elected to an office that confers notability (or any office for that matter). And, while being the 4th minor party candidate to make the ballot in 40 years may be an interesting enough factoid to mention in the election article, it is hardly remarkable enough to establish standalone notability. I favor keeping the edit history intact for easy re-creation in the event  he eventully gets enough coverage to pass WP:GNG.--Rollins83 (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as above, fails to meet WP:Politician. Depending on how much coverage (if any) he gets, I don't see why the article couldn't be created again. Tiller54 (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sarvis is now polling above 5% in Virginia's gubernatorial election: Public Policy Polling. I am a contributor to this article. Reallibertyforall (talk) Antarctica4Liberty 00:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Polling at 5% is a criteria for inclusion in the infobox, not a criteria for meeting the WP:GNG or WP:Politician. Tiller54 (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Making additional comments is fine, but please don't !vote more than once. Thanks.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There's some good coverage in reliable sources following Reallibertyforall's improvements. If the election were over, I might lean towards redirecting, but as such, it's likely coverage will continue. --BDD (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Article should be kept as he has polled above 5% in two consecutive polls, and the commentary is that his candidacy could easily result in the eventual winner only receiving a plurality several percentage points below 50% due to the relatively substantial number of people feeling disapproval with both major party candidates. - S201676 (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Polling over 5% in two consecutive polls is not a criteria for GNG (third party candidates often perform far worse in actual elections than they do in polls). Also, those are the only two polls conducted that even bothered to include his name. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Polling above the 5% threshold is commonly used for notoriety. Also, Sarvis has only been an official candidate since June 26, 2013, so in less than a month, he has been included in multiple polls. Polling above 5% in less than a month is significant for a third party candidate. I am a contributor to this article. Reallibertyforall (talk) Antarctica4Liberty 21:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete He has some coverage as a third party candidate, but not enough for GNG IMHO, and he fails WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. I don't see any justification for ignoring the clear outcome of WP:POLITICIAN in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sarvis has coverage from reliable sources, such as: Fox 5 DC, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Style Weekly, Charlottesville Newsplex, and is mentioned in other sources, such as: The Washington Times, The Roanoke Times, Politico, among other sources as listed in the page's footnotes. I am a contributor to this article. Reallibertyforall (talk) Antarctica4Liberty 08:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is admittedly a close one, but I do see enough coverage cited in the article, and found more with Google. The Richmond Times-Dispatch may not be the NYT, but it is the paper of record in Virginia, they have done a feature article on him. The Daily Press (Virginia), a Tribune Company newspaper, also has featured him. Reason (magazine), while having Libertarian bent, is a well respected national magazine. And I would call Style Weekly Virginia's answer to the Village Voice; again not the NYT, but as part of Landmark Media Enterprises is probably not written by some guy in his basement. This is enough for WP:N in my book, and as such he passes WP:POLITICIAN #3, IMHO. - Wine Guy ~Talk  18:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Libertarian candidate recognized by the SBE. There are more than enough credible sources cited in the article.--111.249.193.131 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2013 (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.