Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Lane Startin


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

W. Lane Startin

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

Fails WP:N per WP:BIO. Only assertions of notability are 1) author of one book with an unknown press, 2) failed bid for U.S. House seat, and 3) controversy arising from position on Iraq war; article seems like a vanity page. No evidence that book is important.  Failed election on third-party ticket does not establish notability.  No third-party coverage of his "controversial" position, or evidence that anyone even noticed. RJC Talk Contribs 17:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Skomorokh  00:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep AlwaysOnion (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason? RJC Talk Contribs 01:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just think it is a pretty OK article, and not something to delete... Shvop! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwaysOnion (talk • contribs) 01:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Startin might be in a public office in the future, but until then, he's not notable enough to merit an article. Found a few sources, but nothing substantial enough to meet guideline requirements (the sources are mainly listings of potential candidates).--  t b c  ♣§♠   (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy)  03:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Notice the COI- there is a notable wikipedian tag on the talk page. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing in the article is an actual achievement of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't share this person's politics, but he has actually begun an exploratory committee for governor, and *has* received coverage in a real newspaper. . That should actually confer some notability on him, although clearly he isn't a political superstar yet. - Nhprman 18:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's also these, but I'll otherwise keep out of this --Faustus37 (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the last of those counts as independent media coverage, seeing as it was written by Startin himself. And WP:POLITICIAN is explicit that candidacy does not suffice for notability; this would seem to speak more heavily against someone whose campaign has not yet officially begun, but is instead still in the stages of an exploratory committee.  RJC Talk Contribs 23:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While I understand the notability guideline's concern, note that it also says at WP:N that notability is "a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." This is something many people forget when rigidly applying these essays to articles, and I think in this case, given that he's been a candidate before, will be again, and is getting news coverage (though obviously not the New York Times, which wouldn't cover a race for governor anyway) that this is one of those "exceptions" times we should use some common sense in applying the notability standard. The fact that he's been given a platform in a local paper to write an article isn't a downside, either, IMO. It actually goes to his notability as a past/future candidate. - Nhprman 14:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to wikilawyer, but WP:BIO is a guideline, not an essay. Nor are guidelines to be ignored in the name of "common sense" and the possibility of "exceptions":  other mere "guidelines" include WP:COI, WP:NOHOAXES, WP:NONSENSE, WP:RELIABLE, WP:ETIQ, WP:POINT, and WP:GAME.  The difference between a guideline and a policy involves the number of exceptions that might be imagined and the procedures for changing it (see Policies and Guidelines).  So far from being an exception that has somehow slipped through the cracks of Wikipedia policy and guideline so as to technically fail them while nonetheless being notable, this is a textbook case of non-notability.  Lyndon La Rouche can be a perennial candidate and still be notable:  W. Lane Startin cannot.  RJC Talk Contribs 18:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote about common sense and exceptions wasn't original to me. I quoted it from WP:BIO (the first line of the second paragraph.) Guidelines are NOT Policies, and frankly, shouldn't be quoted here on AfD's as if from a law book or from Scripture, as if it somehow "settles" issues. Guidelines are to be used with common sense and yes, with exceptions when warranted. The very link you quoted on policies and guidelines states: "Policies are considered a standard that all users should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature. Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules." (my bolding.) Many users here are eager to rigidly enforce guidelines with far more rigor than ever intended. Throwing a bunch of guidelines up against the wall is a rather lawyerly tactic for self-professed non-wikilawyer. Suffice it to say it's absurd to say this is nonsense, to accuse the creator of gaming the system is not WP:AGF nor is it proper etiquette, it's hardly making a "point" and is clearly not a hoax, since this is a real person who has garnered real, realiable media coverage. The accusation of COI is unproven, though it was alleged. In the end, is the candidate "notable"? It's not a slam dunk, I admit. But then again, notability doesn't mean nationally/internationally known, nor is it fame or "notoriety" nor "published a lot on the Internet," which are criteria sometimes applied by Wikipedians, unjustifiably, IMO. - Nhprman 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you took those to be accusations: I meant them as examples.  My point was that no one would say, "but, WP:HOAX is just a guideline, and so we shouldn't feel bound to apply it rigorously" (we delete a lot of pages on April 1, making no exception for how funny they are).  The same goes for WP:ETIQ, WP:GAME, and the other guidelines I mentioned.  The rationale for considering something to be an exception to the guideline should not repudiate the guideline:  there should still be something left to apply in ordinary cases, otherwise you're not even taking it as generally good advice.  WP:POLITICIAN reflects a consensus that people whose only claim to fame is political candidacy are not notable.  Startin is precisely the sort of person this guideline was intended to cover.  If you want candidates to be notable, try to get the consensus changed. RJC Talk Contribs 16:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The language in the WP:BIO guideline (and elsewhere) urging "common sense and the occassional exception" was put into the guideline by consensus. But when I read (in effect) "Violates WP:BIO. End of discussion" that's a WikiFundamentalism that quotes the guidelines as if they are scripture, not a discussion. Mr. Startin is, IMO, just above the cutoff for notability. He's known in Idaho (former pres. of the state's Young Democrats and on the Idaho State Democratic Committee) and in Nevada, as a candidate and a published author of a biography of a native Nevadan. He's received coverage in real newspapers and has indeed been a candidate from a minor, but well-known, party (The Green Party isn't of his own invention) and is known as a candidate and political figure in two states. "National notoriety" isn't demanded here, though I suspect it's being used as a de facto criteria. - Nhprman 17:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "This notability guideline for biographies is not policy," quote from WP:BIO. - Nhprman 15:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per various comments above. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:03, 13 July 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.