Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Jones (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   no consensus. He sort of skirts the line for the GNG, and I'm not surprised opinions are split. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Stan Jones (politician)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I am proposing this article for deletion as Stan Jones fails to meet Wikipedia's notability standard for politicians. He has never held office, has received no significant media coverage. His only came to fame was being a candidate for political office who has a rare skin condition, argyria which in and of itself does not make him notable. Therefore, he really has no notability and this article should be deleted in my opinion. Pstanton 07:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw some media reports about this guy a while back, not on his blueness, but of his political views. Basically, what he says in that YouTube video is what made him notable for me. When I found out he was blue, I got quite a laugh out of this guy. I vote for keep, but I have edited his article once and think he's a barrel of laughs. It just so happens that his politics and his blueness might add up to WP:Notable. I like to saw logs! (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, I'm just not sure, maybe his article just needs expanding but at the moment it certainly doesn't appear to fit the notability guidelines for politicians, which is that they hold elected office and/or receive major news coverage and neither of those seem to be true. To me, he just seems like another failed political candidate who has *00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * weak delete - I'm more a WP:N stickler than most people here, and to me, notability would be demonstrated by significant comment in relatively-important press or books, showing notability more than just within the USA, and which can be expected to remain relevant over time. The article presently does have a mention in BBC as a source, but that's all. It seems Jones' notability is tied up entirely in losing an election twice as a fringe candidate, and having turned blue. Given he's not as well known or politically successful as Papa Smurf, I'd have to say the subject fails notability right now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know there is no multi-national notability requirement in WP:N. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but I'd think that having an article on a failed US finge party politician, when we likely wouldn't consider an article on (say) a failed Botswanan fringe party politician, might violate the spirit of WP:BIAS. Then again, that's just me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW - I also stumbled across WP:BLP1E. Is that a more convincing argument? One could argue that turning blue and running as a fringe party candidate are two events. But then again, we (the outside world) would have never found out about him turning blue unless he'd ran as a candidate to begin with. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep, certainly covered in media, either as an example of a person with argyria, or because of his pivotal role in the United States Senate election in Montana, 2006 where he is percieved to have "stolen" votes from the republican candidate, allowing the democratic victory  and subsequent Democratic control of the Senate. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * comment if his main claim to lasting notability is his effect on the United States Senate election in Montana, 2006, he should be given brief mention in that article. But if that's his only legacy, I dunno if he deserves his own article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * comment - All I know is my gut says maybe. But I'm not a neutral - so I maintain a marginal keep. Usrnme h8er (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's certainly marginal either way. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete the color of one's skin doesn't make him notable in itself. He still has to be covered by third-party sources in a non-trivial manner.  All references to him are trivial and do not meet the guidelines of WP:N or WP:BIO. Themfromspace (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I can see both sides of this. On balance I think he's probably received sufficient media coverage to meet WP:N, but I recognise his relative unimportance as a politician.  I think the multiple re-listing in search of consensus shows that consensus won't be reached.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * *Comment I can see that, and I'm a little bothered by that as he clearly doesn't fulfill notability for politicians (being elected to office) and his only real claim to fame is having a rare disease. But we don't give EVERYONE with a rare disease an article... Thats my take on it anyways. --Pstanton 07:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 January 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.