Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Smith

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

Tim Smith
Losing minor party candidate in last November's Congressional election - and no edits since last November. Not notable. Delete. -- BD2412 talk 14:33, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
 * Delete. Losing minor party candidates (and, indeed, major party candidates when they have no chance whatsoever) are not as a rule notable. Articles on the parties are fine, but unless they are a recognisable figure in there own right (e.g. the late Screaming Lord Sutch in the UK) then nothing can really be worth saying about them other than their percentage of the vote, and that is most usefully achieved in an article on the election rather than the candidate. This Tim Smith has certainly had less influence politically than, say, the former Conservative party MP for Beaconsfield in the UK of the same name. Average Earthman 15:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 *  Keep  candidates who have been on the ballot in federal elections. Failing that, merge/redirect to United States House of Representatives, Washington District 7 once created.  Change to disambig page once someone writes an article on the MP. -- Jonel | Speak 17:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if we should have an article on the district (which I agree we should), I disagree with incorporating information about gadfly candidates. The Green Papers (which is very conscientous about listing third party candidates) does not even show this guy's name, meaning he probably never even made it on the ballot. -- BD2412 talk 22:13, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
 * Hold the phone. I just checked the WA Secretary of State's site (here) to double check that, and their site (like the Green Papers) lists only McDermott and Cassidy.  It appears that Smith was not on the ballot; therefore, I am changing my vote to Delete.  Please note that my comments in support of keeping all candidates that are on ballots for federal elective office still stand; I just now know that Smith is not one of them.  Charles Moore, Bruce Guthrie, Spencer Garrett, and Robert Losey should have articles. -- Jonel | Speak 03:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been had before. It is trivially easy to get onto ballots in many countries.  (In several, it's merely a matter of a monetary deposit and a certain number of people's signatures.)  A general principle of allowing biographical articles for people whose sole claim to notability is that they managed to have themselves listed on ballots is an unwise one.  Actually winning the election, on the other hand, is a different matter. Uncle G 03:33, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
 * I suggest that a losing candidate is notable by their candidacy alone (as opposed to some wacky thing they said or did) if the number of votes they received has some legal significance (in many districts, a minor-party candidate who gets more than 5% of the vote assures their party an automatic slot on the ballot for the next cycle), or if their presence on the ballot actually influences the outcome of the election (in the sense of Ralph Nader in 2000). -- BD2412 talk 03:50, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
 * And I still disagree that including federal candidates regardless of ease of candidacy is an unwise principle. For example, Bruce Guthrie in WA-2 received 2.5% of the vote in a U.S. House of Representatives election.  That's not a huge percentage (and less than the 5% referenced by BD2412 above), but it still means that nearly 8,000 people voted him.  Charles Moore in WA-1 had 1.75% of the vote, which means almost 6,000 people voted for him.  I'm fine with merging them into district articles if really necessary, but we've kept article that I feel have far less notability than federal political candidates.  However, I do realize that consensus is (usually - see Alan de Jardin and the related VfD) against me in this and will not create any more articles for losing third-party candidates.  I will defend them each and every time I see them on VfD, though. -- Jonel | Speak 04:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this generically-named losing candidate. He can have an article if he accomplishes something. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * For the reasons given in Votes for deletion/Robert W. Mitchell Delete. Uncle G 20:04, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
 * Uncle G, please note that Mitchell was a candidate for a state legislature while Smith was a candidate for a national legislature. -- Jonel | Speak 02:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I already noted it, in the reasons that I have referred to. Please read them again, more carefully. Uncle G 03:25, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
 * Substantially more than 49 people voted for, e.g., Bruce Guthrie. And I actually do think Barrie Singleton should have an article.  However, I do think that my comment there should have been generally addressed rather than to you in specific, as there are plenty of other reasons (by contributors other than you) given in the Mitchell VfD that do not apply to Smith. -- Jonel | Speak 04:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep,failing that merge, per Jonel. Kappa 20:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Losing candidate not notable for anything but losing.  Tons of people run for office every year and fail. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 21:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless he has done something else notable. Running for office is not in itself notable unless the candidate is elected or affects the election contest ie by saying something controversial that handicaps his parties chances. Otherwise, we should have candidate biographies when they already hold a notable position such as state member or mayor of a sizable city or they have a biography featuring achievements in other areas ie sportsman, corporate leader, union leader etc. Capitalistroadster 00:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. I see no reason to expect expansion. As for verifiabilty, his bio says little more than he's "a bottler, a father, a husband, a handyman and a freshwater fisherman". Double Blue  (Talk) 00:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not elected = not notable. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable losing candidate. JamesBurns 09:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable.  Grue   16:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete its gotten to the point that even **I** am more notable than the subject of this article. Vonkje 20:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete losing in an election is, by itself, non-notable. -Splash 15:41, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable person... Any clown can run and lose. In fact, any clown can run and win :) --GrandCru 08:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.