Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Van Taylor


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS. I would observe for future reference that losers generally get deleted, however, should it come to that. -Splash - tk 23:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Van Taylor
Van Taylor is merely a candidate and has no redeeming qualities for being notable such as being a state legislator per WP:BIO. See Articles for deletion/Diane Farrell. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 02:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is also mentioned in Candidates and elections. So far as I can tell, Taylor isn't notable enough to meet the guidelines, and as yet no article has been written about the race itself. Davemo 02:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not use WP:C&E to delete articles. First, it's a proposed guideline.  Second, it specifies in C&E not to use it to delete existing articles. - Lex 08:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Might merit an article (maybe in the future), but I still say delete. P.B. Pilh  e  t  /  Talk  02:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I see absolutely no reason to delete this article.  He's a major party candidate for US Congress.  All this article needs is a couple more sources to flesh it out (and make it look less like a political ad). - Lex 08:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete-- informal precedent, which I strongly agree with, is that candidates are not notable simply for being candidates. They become notable when elected or do something else that satisfies our criteria for notability. If we have an article on him, we should have an article on everybody that's running against him. Not to do so would be fiddling with politics. --Storkk 12:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn candidate. Come back when the voters give you the nod.  Dei zio  talk 15:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete is he elected? No. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 17:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:BIO (and proposed WP:C&E). -David Schaich Talk/Cont 18:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - as a candidate for Congress, along with notable media appearances and a lot of activity in the article history demonstrate notability. If he loses the election, re-submit for deletion. If he wins, the article will be re-created anyway. SkerHawx 18:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Okay, I can be persuaded Bulawdude. Let's go with a weak delete, although we need to crystallize our policy on this. SkerHawx 20:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete -- I think this article was originally posted by a campaign worker, given the original tenor and illustrations. The activity in the article history is because his campaign people or other persons interested in his electoral success keep vandalizing the article. If he is elected, then the article can be recreated.--Bulawdude 19:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This man is a major party candidate for Congress and his opponent DOES have a wikipedia page as well. Bulawdude and another individual keep inserting information they think will hurt the candidate while making sure to change anything they don't like such as a picture of the man in his Class A uniform (which Bulawdude asked for) and links within the article to things such as the Marine Corps Reserves.--Truthman20
 * Comment -- I don't think I was the one that asked for a new picture of Van Taylor.--Bulawdude 16:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I was, see the talk page to see the source of all this vandalism crap. Unless you are the Taylor campaign head, Truthman20, in which case....well, you should probably know that a military uniform is a little unprofessional for a biography over someone recognized for their political actions. --Kugamazog 21:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete -- I think that the article is a stub and should be deleted, but replaced with an article on this election.  However, in the absence of the election article, it should be kept. RydiaAngel 00:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I think people should be able to find atleast some info looking this guy up. If he doesn't make it, then we can delete, but until then, he is somewhat noteable. However, Truthman20 and Bulawdude both seem to be juggling the page around repeatedly. I don't know which of the two is doing it, but I checked the version today vs the the version I left it yesterday, and they deleted the references section again. I'm kinda hinting to deleting it because someone pro-Taylor is cleraly not leaving the damn thing alone, but deleting the page may actually be more beneficial to them. He's not particularly a good candidate when he's on a site with facts...--Kugamazog 01:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Unless I made a mistake, I keep trying to put the references back in that get deleted. Sometimes it takes me more than one try to do it because of my poor technical skills. I agree with you, Kugamazog, that the only problem with this article is that somebody doesn't like the facts about the subject.--Bulawdude 20:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -- This is a major party candidate for US Congress, who won a primary, and is in a race that is competitive. Whereas the major parties in some districts offer up "sacrificial lambs" just so that somebody appears on the ballot, this is not the case with Tex-17.  It's a competitive race where the incumbent has only a slight lead.  Last year the incumbant won by only 4 pct points.  As of this writing, there are 111 links to him in news.google; articles discussing in the past two days have appeared in local publications, state-wide publications, , and even national publications, such as one yesterday by Wash Post, and one the day before by The Hill.  To delete him would make WP's fair application of notability a complete farce.  Yes, the articlce is a weak-stub, but it needs beefing up, not deletion. -- Sholom 13:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The news coverage could be used to argue that he's a major local political figure per WP:BIO. I considered changing my vote on that basis, but decided that he can't yet be considered a major local political figure.  After all, if he loses the election, there's every possibility he'll sink into obscurity. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 21:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a competitive race for the House; it's worth keeping the article until the general election in early November.  (If someone were to put a bit of time into creating a campaign article, I'd vote for a redirect.)  John Broughton  |  Talk 18:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WatchingYouLikeAHawk. Akanksha 04:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm finding quite a few articles that he's the main subject of or is an important subject.  Here are just a few -, , . Seems to meet WP:BIO.  Just to show how unbiased my opinion on this is, I'll disclose I'd prefer the other guy to win.--Marriedtofilm 03:11, 18 October 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.