Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Chretien


 * 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 of the nomination was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Todd Chretien
Minor party political candidate - non-notable, Delete. BlueValour 16:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Griot and DKalkin are editors of the article (I wondered why their Keep votes appeared so quickly :-)). BlueValour 04:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, it's on my watch list. Is that relevant to anything? Kalkin 18:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Your point? I'm interested in this guy. He's on my watch list. I'm not a fan, by the way, and wouldn't vote for him. But I think he's an interesting figure. Griot 23:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Chretien might be a minor party candidate, but he's no more minor than a lot of other people whose bios are on wikipedia. He is an interesting figure in California politics, and he is a political writers as well as a politican with many writing credits to his name. Griot 16:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC) I think we ought to at least keep it until the California senatorial election is over in November. Voters need a neutral source of into on this candidate. Griot 23:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - indeed there are some trivial people on WP - that is no reason, though, to retain another one. The answer is to bring forward an AfD for the other trivial ones.


 * Keep. It is hardly neutral or fair for Wikipedia to maintain bios only on Democratic and Republican political candidates in the U.S., which seems to be the consequence of a consistent application of the basis for the nomination. Kalkin 17:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Candidates on their own, even from a major party, does not in itself confer notability. The race could be in a tiny district that means little to the outside world, or the candidate could merely be a sacrificial lamb in a race where the only result in doubt is how much the margin of victory (as in most WV Senate races in the last 40-odd years). Just the act of running for congress isn't enough. There has to be something extra to command attention, such as a very heated campaign, outrageous views out of step with the rest of one's party, something like that. --DarkAudit 03:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Response - This is a very strict standard. Wikipedia isn't short of space, and any candidate in a statewide or larger race with even minimal publicity is likely to attract potential Wikipedia users who might want to find out something about their background.  And as above, determining notability by electibility has, at least in the U.S., the very troubling implication that only Democrats and Republicans (plus maybe "spoilers" like Nader) can ever be notable - in our winner-takes-all system, in the foreseeable future third-party candidates will only win local elections, which is apparently not notable by this standard either... I don't think we want to reduce Neutral point of view to Bipartisan point of view.Kalkin 18:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You're missing my point. I'm saying that just because one may be the Democratic or Republican candidate for a Congressional district does not make one notable. I'll use the Current WV Senate race as an example. Barring a major incident, Robert C. Byrd is going to be re-elected for another term. His opponent, John Raese, would not, IMO, warrant an article based solely on his candidacy, even though he is the Republican nominee. --DarkAudit 21:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - No, you're missing mine. :p Some Dem/GOP candidates would be excluded by your "electability" notability standard - but pretty much all third party candidates would be.  That's one of the bigger problems with narrowing it that much, because it's not just a reduction in information it's a distinctly non-neutral one. Kalkin 23:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is where we differ. It is not the role of WP to be neutral or not-neutral or to be politically balanced. We are an encyclopaedia and record notable people and events. We are not part of the political process. Candidates who are notable get articles, those who are not, don't. BlueValour 23:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (restarting indentation) Comment - This is where we differ, indeed. My interpretation of WP:NPOV applies it to which content (including articles) is included, as well as how content is presented - thus I think we should endeavor to have as neutral a set of notability criteria as we can.  Unfortunately I can't find a policy that explicitly addresses this issue.  Well, we'll disagree, and we'll see how the poll turns out. Kalkin 00:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the arguments above, we need to include all candidates (no matter how trivial, or how minimal their chances of winning) or none. I vote none, unless they have attracted significant attention outside of the local area. Being elected is notable. Running is not. Fan1967 17:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Regardless of the notability, the article does not establish any reputible secondary resources so fails WP:VER and becomes total original research, possibly autobiographical. (The national geography winner has more notability, think about it). Ste4k 20:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Running for office in itself is not notable unless there is significant third-party coverage. However, there seems to be enough verifiable third party sources to mean that it is a borderline case. One thing in its favor is that is an article not just a cut and paste from his website.Capitalistroadster 20:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Whole lotta political-cruft propping up a very thin resume. Other than the third-party candidacy, not notable, accomplished, newsworthy, infamous, or important enough for an article -- on November 8, 2006, he goes back to being another political wannabe. If he wants free PR for the next 120 days, he can go elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete being a first, second, third, ...., twentieth party candidate doesn't make you notable. Winning a notable election does. The only except might be for the leader of a country. Royalbroil 04:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It would be hypocritical if we kept an article on "Clay Oliver Hill" (an article I tried to have deleted for utter lack of merit: his primary claim to fame is "show[ing] unusual disdain for the National Political Awareness Test") while at the same time removing an article on a politician who is actually notable. —Sesel 21:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with you. Things have moved on since 2004 so I am bringing forward an AfD. BlueValour 21:19, 5 July 2006 (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.