Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas L. Knapp


 * 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   redirect to Boston Tea Party (political party). consensus is the content would be better located within the article about the party. It's under the re-direct for whoever wants to add it. TravellingCari 19:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas L. Knapp

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

This article cites no sources that aren't published by the subject or his organization; the only related result on a Google News Archive search is a press release. So, per WP:V ("If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it") we need actual evidence that third party sources exist, or we cannot have an article on this person. Rividian (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Ballot Access News confirms that the Boston Tea Party is on the ballot in three states. Knapp is the party's official VP nominee. He is on the ticket of a notable (albeit barely) political party, which makes him notable. Better sources would be desirable, however.--JayJasper (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here is an article from Ballot Access News verifying that he is the VP candidate.--JayJasper (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if "Ballot Access News" is a reliable source, but it only mentions Knapp once in passing. These two sources are a start for an article on the Boston Tea Party, but they're hardly enough to write a meaningful biography from. Sources about a biographical subject aren't just desirable, they're required. --Rividian (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, his name should be a likely candidate for redirection to an article about the party (and merging any verifiable info). - Mgm|(talk) 21:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with redirection... but this is probably a case where the redirect would just get undone without the consensus of an AFD. --Rividian (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We can always request protection if people ignore consensus to redirect. We should let this discussion run its course to get consensus to do this. - Mgm|(talk) 23:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would consider Ballot Access News a very reliable source. Its editor, Richard Winger, is often cited in mainstream news articles about minor party politics and ballot access issues. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with, or redirect to Boston Tea Party (political party). I withdraw my earlier motion to "keep" based on the nominator's clarified arguments about the flimsy sources being insufficient for bio article. Seeing that Knapp is the founder, as well as VP candidate of the party (which seems to have passed the notability test) should justify a merge or redirect, however. Support Mgm's suggestion about protection if users ignore consensus to redirect.--JayJasper (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with the Boston Tea Party article. If he becomes more notable at a later date, the article can always be spun out again.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into deleted article Boston Tea Party (political party); i.e., delete. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Although Boston Tea Party (political party) has been deleted before, it has since been re-created and is currently the subject of a deletion review. Merging this article into the article about the party may be a good idea, but it won't necessarily result in deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 2 November 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.