Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve House (Colorado)


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 04:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Steve House (Colorado)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As yet unelected candidate in a primary contest for a future election, with no properly sourced evidence that he's attained enough notability to warrant a Wikipedia article yet. Per WP:POLITICIAN, a person is not notable as a politician until they win election to a notable office — absent that, you have to be able to prove that he's notable enough for other things to pass a different notability guideline, but that hasn't been proven here. This article, rather, is quite clearly little more than a promotional brochure. As always, he'll be entitled to a Wikipedia article if he wins the election, but he is not entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. The description of "promotional brochure" is apt, since it appears one of the major editors of the article is House's campaign director. —C.Fred (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And thus we add conflict of interest to the pile of reasons why the article may not exist in this form. Truthfully, I suspected as much — it usually is the campaign manager who posts these premature "So-and-so is a candidate" puff pieces. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice. After a Google news search, I didn't see enough coverage of House to demonstrate that he is currently a notable individual. As mentioned above, he doesn't yet meet WP:POLITICIAN, and all the coverage I see of House is in the context of a field of six gubernatorial candidates. If he wins nomination in the primary election, then I will buy into the presumption of significant coverage and recommend a new article be created. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. At this time, however, I don't see the coverage to meet WP:GNG, I don't see anything to get him notability under WP:BIO for his life before running for office, and I don't think he should have an article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect - To Colorado gubernatorial election, 2014, where he is already appropriately mentioned, restore if elected. Dru of Id (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I still favor deleting the article: if he becomes notable later, we'll want a restructured article over what we have now. However, I think that if the article is deleted, it should be replaced with a redirect to the election. I also wouldn't object if the history is preserved but the page is turned into a redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Steve House is well known within the healthcare industry as a business consultant. Regardless his run for governor in Colorado, his expertise and reputation establish him as a go-to resource for cost-effective delivery of health care technologies. Suspect that BEARCAT is a member of an opposing campaign. House is notable as a candidate precisely because he is not a career politician. His sphere of influence is outside the political class, although he did serve as an aide to Senator Kent Lambert on the Joint Budget Committee and IS an ELECTED official within the Republican Party in his position as chairman of the Adams County, Colorado Republican Party.  RETAIN ON WIKIPEDIA Okerstrom (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC) — Okerstrom (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Firstly, I don't even live in the United States (and never have in my entire life) at all, so it's not even possible for me to be a "member of an opposing campaign". And for that matter, I quite regularly act to delete articles about unelected candidates who have not properly demonstrated their notability — even when they're associated with the political party in my own country that I do actively support, I still act to delete them on here if they're not making a properly sourced claim of notability that actually passes Wikipedia's inclusion rules.
 * Secondly, being the chair of a political party's local organization in a particular county is still not a claim of notability that passes WP:POLITICIAN — while local politicians (mayors, county executives, city councillors, local organizers, etc.) may be notable under certain specific circumstances that have not been met or passed here, the lowest level of elected office that automatically confers notability on everybody who holds the office is the state level (i.e. members of the legislature, cabinet officers, etc.)
 * Thirdly, the fact of being a business consultant does not automatically confer Wikipedia-includable notability on a person either — your claim that he's a "go-to resource for cost-effective delivery of health care technologies" still does not constitute a valid claim of notability unless you can properly source that he's widely recognized as such in independent sources rather than just asserting it.
 * Wikipedia does not have an ideological bias in favour of one political party or against another, or a preference for one candidate over another in a pending primary or nomination race — what we do have is notability rules dictating that a politician, regardless of their political affiliation, is not in most circumstances an appropriate topic for an article on here until they've actually won election to a notable position; absent that, you have to make a claim of notability for something other than just their candidacy itself, much stronger and more properly sourced than has actually been made here. If he wins the primary and becomes the actual candidate for governor in the general election, then that will probably be enough to warrant an article, since "major party candidate in a gubernatorial election" is in most cases a notable enough position in its own right — but merely being a candidate in the primary does not, in and of itself, constitute sufficient notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirecy to Colorado gubernatorial election, 2014, per User:Dru of Id. This is a usual and appropriate outcome. Enos733 (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * RETAIN ON WIKIPEDIA: House gives talks all over the United States to professionals in the health care industry. He is a published author. Not a self-published author, but an expert in his field with a New York-based publishing house. The Adams County GOP is a major player in Colorado politics, as Adams County is a major urban jurisdiction in metropolitan Denver. While notability may be in question from the perspective of one living in another country, it is not in question among objective residents of Colorado or professionals in the American healthcare industry. Notability for this individual was questioned shortly after initial publication of the page, when the article was in early stages and contained relatively little information and source material. As authors of this article conduct more research, and present more details, the notability question gets weaker. House is quite notable in an important, non-glamorous field that receives little attention. The Steve House page meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. As for "conflict of interest," the writer in question explained in the talk section of the Steve House page that she merely posted verifiable biographical details without knowledge of the fact most Wikipedia authors work incognito. The objective, factual nature of her contributions can be verified with a simple review of the history transcript. The fact she was honest about her identity should not work against the Steve House page.CampaignWatcher (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CampaignWatcher (talk • contribs) 22:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)  — CampaignWatcher (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Notability on Wikipedia is not a question of simply asserting a person's importance — it's a question of being able to demonstrate that the person has received coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject for one or more accomplishments that would satisfy one of our notability rules. The very fact that you can honestly say that's he's "notable" in a "non-glamorous field that receives little attention" is exactly the problem — the reception of attention for one or more qualifying career accomplishments is the definition of notability on here. It doesn't matter how much importance you assert that a person has — if the coverage in reliable sources is not there to properly verify that they've accomplished something that meets one or more of our inclusion rules, then the person doesn't qualify for an article no matter how important you believe them to be. You need coverage of his business career in independent sources to make him notable enough to get past our inclusion rules for people in business, not just an assertion that he's a major and important figure in a poorly-covered industry.
 * Publishing a book doesn't, in and of itself, automatically qualify a person for an article on here either, particularly if the best source you can add for the book is its sales profile on an online bookstore. That's a primary source which does not demonstrate notability — you need coverage of the book in independent sources to make him notable enough to get past our inclusion rules for writers, not just a "purchase the book here" link.
 * And for the record, considering that you have never made a single edit to Wikipedia that didn't directly pertain to Steve House (his article itself, adding his name to other articles about his competitors in the primary and commenting here), you also have at least the appearance of a conflict of interest here, as does Okerstrom for the exact same reason — you both need to be aware that Wikipedia's AFD policy specifically permits people's contributions to the discussion to be discounted or excluded from the final consensus summation if they don't have a well-established history of contributing to a diversity of topics and a well-established record of familiarity with Wikipedia's inclusion or exclusion policies. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete While those who receive major party nominations as gubanatorial candidates may well be notable, in general just being one of four contenders in a primary, especially when the primary has not happened and the candidate might back out, does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Retain: Subject is a published author and professional speaker in the health care profession, which is a central topic in American politics. Subject is elected head of major GOP organization. Unlike at least two other Republican candidates in this race, the subject of this entry has been invited to both debates and is considered a major contender by the media and Republican establishment, as documented. Given this subject's notability, deletion would be viewed as political favoritism of competing candidates and would not do service to voters who want to know more about the candidate.Saddleburr4u (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC) — Saddleburr4u (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wow, yet another SPA who's never made a single edit to Wikipedia that didn't directly pertain to Steve House. Is the conflict of interest rule really that hard to comprehend?
 * All together now, once more with feeling: nobody's disputing that he is a published author and professional speaker in the health care profession, but what the article still lacks is reliable sources which properly demonstrate that he's a notable published author and professional speaker in the health care profession. I see you changed the source for the book, for example, but the new source still fails our reliable sourcing rules, because it's still (1) a promotional blurb, (2) on a site that has a direct personal affiliation with House's coauthor, and (3) has a "login to purchase this book here" link right at the top of the page. It's not coverage of the book in an independent source; it's an advertisement for the book in an affiliated source, which is not the kind of sourcing that passes our rules on here.
 * And as for "deletion would be viewed as political favoritism of competing candidates and would not do service to voters who want to know more about the candidate", guess what? We're not the media, and "doing a service to voters" is not our job. Our responsibility here is to look past the daily news and figure out what people are still going to need to know five or ten years from now, not to grant "equal time" to aspiring politicians who want to promote themselves in current elections even if their articles aren't properly sourced. If he wins the primary and becomes the actual candidate for governor in the general election, then he'll be a topic we should cover here — but our role when it comes to politics begins and ends at writing about people who've actually won election to a notable office or position, not every single candidate in a primary race. Bearcat (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The place for the candidate's agents to publicise his views on the economy, gun rights, marijuana etc is his campaign brochure, not this encyclopedia. WP:POLITICIAN is there precisely to prevent Wikipedia filling up with candidates' promotional articles like this. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2014 (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.