Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Beren


 * 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   delete. - Philippe 02:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve Beren

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

Unsuccessful candidate in an election, no other claim to notability. Almost G11-able in my book, but decided against it. Blueboy96 20:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment High COI to boot--author is . How'd this last since 2006? Blueboy96 20:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough notablility.Ltwin (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The sources are valid and other candidates who ran against Jim McDermott are allowed, see Carol Cassady. Although it'd be best if a losing candidate has something more for notability. There is some criticism by Hussein Ibish, but it sounds like that never went national. It's not like James L. Hart with eugenics. So I'm open to switching my vote.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep. An article can be a masterpiece and yet still not belong here if notability is a concern. Blueboy96 01:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an essay not a policy or guideline. My main concern is that the "rules" on failed candidates itself strike me as somewhat unclear. Do you have a policy, or even essay, specific to this issue? Does a failed candidate being the nominee of a major national party, and having been a subject in the mainstream press, make him or her notable? I really don't know. I'm erring modestly on the side of caution for now until I find clarity on the matter.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On reviewing Notability (people) I've decided to withdraw my "weak keep" vote. This person does not seem to have held statewide office or had sufficiently significant press coverage. Still I have some doubts so I'm not voting delete either. I think if deleted it should be "without prejudice" as in a person can recreate it if notability intensifies enough. I'll go ahead and remove him from List of former atheists.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. I found a NYT story about his petition to the FCC for "equal" radio time, when he was a candidate of the Socialist Workers Party, but that's a fairly minor event that never reached lawsuit proportions. It's amusing that he is now a Republican but not really something notable (especially when you consider the lefty origins of what became the neo-conservative movement). --Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable political candidate. He can have an article only if and when he gets elected, which judging by the results last time he ran isn't going to happen.  KleenupKrew (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep From: Steve Beren - To: Blueboy96 and others interested in whether this article should be deleted - with all respect, I would suggest that it is warranted to keep this article. I'll try to be objective as possible in explaining why. I am more than just a routine failed candidate, and I am also running against McDermott again in 2008. McDermott recently paid $1,000,000+ in legal fees and fines owing to (alleged) violations of wiretapping laws. He has depleted his campaign funds in paying these penalties, opening up the 2008 race a bit. While you state that I have no other important notability other than as a failed candidate, this is really not the case. I was a far left activist, communist, antiwar activist, Socialist Workers Party member, and atheist from 1968 to 1990, becoming a born-again Christian in 1995. The news articles linked to the Wikipedia article (e.g., the Bruce Ramsey article in 2006) discusses my former communism and former atheism. At www.steveberen.com, you can click on "amazing grace" and read about my conversion from atheism to Christianity. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, I started to do the talk show and lecture circuit, especially talking to young people about my communist, atheist past and urging people to seek God and to be patriotic. During my time as a motivational speaker during this period (late 2001 to early 2006) I came into contact with Republican activists, was involved in the Bush re-election effort, and was recruited to run against McDermott in 2006 (and now again in 2008). Because McDermott is a very liberal candidate in a very liberal district, and because I am a former leftist who is now a conservative, the McDermott-Beren election has caught the attention of the media not just as a routine election but as an interesting and unusual matchup. Official filing to be on the ballot is June 2, and if a wait-and-see approach is taken to deleting my article, it will become clear that I am a Wikipedia-worthy subject and not merely a routine past candidate. I respect your intentions and of course I respect whatever the ultimate result of the process is, but I sincerely (and as objectively as I can) believe that it will be borne out on closer examination that this article is worthy of being retained. Thanks for considering this point of view.Steveberen (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)... additional comments by Steve Beren - just to stress that I am not merely a former candidate, but a current candidate, former atheist turned born-again Christian, former communist turned Republican, and former philosophical opponent of the concept of patriotism who is now a patriot. The page as it existed a few days ago had several negative media references, some deliberately posted by me to achieve less COI and more balance through the negative comments.  But this might not have been apparent except to those who sourced out and read the references themselves.  So I have updated the page, putting greater emphasis on the negative and controversial aspects of how the media and others have seen my biography.  I did not mean to "vote" twice, so I have combined my two comments.  I am not entirely familiar with the format and process, so please bear with me. - Steve Beren, 3:29 pm PDT, 5/10/08 ..... Futher comments (5/10/08, 10:04 pm PDT) - Wikipedia notability guidelines - this whole discussion has led me to review, for the first time, the Wikpedia notability guidelines - reading them I am sincerely persuaded that this should not be deleted - it is not merely a candidacy, it is a continuing topic of interest, the article has many outside sources over a period of time, the elections are part of it but not all there is to it, and the article is well-balanced, COI is theoretically possibly of concern but in this case does not actually have any reflection or biased content results, and negative comments are fair, accurate, properly presented, and properly sourced —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveberen (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you "vote" twice? I don't think you're allowed to do that,--T. Anthony (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - being a former Communist turned born-again Christian is rather predictable and ordinary, and doesn't establish any notability at all. Any assertion of notability is going to have to rest in the political campaigns, and the standard is, a political candidate is not notable enough for an article unless they actually get elected to a major office (such as the U.S. Congress).  Merely running for office is WP:BLP1E. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think it's common. I was looking for examples of it and I've found only a few. (Marvin Olasky is the only definite one I find) However uncommon personal situations in themselves don't make a person notable. If a woman had three widows named George this would be uncommon, but it would not necessarily make her fit for a Wikipedia article. Well unless her life became a TV movie or something. If "The Steve Beren Story" became a major motion picture he might merit an article even if he never gets elected to anything.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Recreate if he [chuckle] wins. -R. fiend (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - further comment by Steve Beren. It is not just a matter of "former candidate" or "communist/atheist turned Christian/Republican."  It is both those things, PLUS current congressional candidate, plus current and controversial campaign against a very liberal incumbent who has (allegedly) been accused of ethics violations and alleged illegal actions.  In Seattle, there are no GOP elected officials, so the congressional candidate is the candidate who is the main public face of the Seattle GOP.  In many ways, my campaign follows the campaign role model of the conservative William Buckley mayoral campaign in 1965 in New York City. - Steve Beren, 5/11/08, 9:42 am PDT  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.14.64 (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - "Just being ... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'" Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POLITICIAN#Politicians - Steve Beren, 5/11/08, 10:50 am PDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.14.64 (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as sufficiently notable political candidate for Wikipedia. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2008 (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.