Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Mohr


 * 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 Constitution Party (United States). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

William Mohr

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has run for political office many times, has lost every race. Most refs are by summaries of candidates or election results, only one WP:RS about the candidate himself.
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * keep, there's precedent for Constitution (and any major third-party) vice presidential nominees to have separate articles. See Scott Bradley (politician), Jim Clymer, Curtis Frazier, Herbert Titus. As a national vice presidential candidate he received plenty of media coverage. Kingofthedead (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Kingofthedead is the primary editor for this article. Constitution is not a major 3rd party. It's not even called that in Michigan (U.S. Taxpayers Party). There was virtually no WP:RS independent media coverage, certainly not in listed his article. But the articles you've mentioned would also be good candidates, I'll nominate them, too. Thanks.
 * You seem to be interested in politics, good. Wikipedia is one of the best resources for getting information about a politician, something you can't find anywhere else. I'm not sure what the purpose of actively getting rid of that sort of information does besides make it much harder for people interested in politics (such as us) to find things out. Kingofthedead (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Politician" would indicate some level of expertise. If we rid the article of all the non-reliable sources (the party website, the self-reporting, the single issue Ballot Access News 1-person blog) there wouldn't really be enough for even a stub. WP:RS reporting seems to be a listing of all candidates, showing few votes, down below the margin of error of people accidentally marking the wrong entry. This is not so much a "politician" as a self-important gadfly, who likes to see his own name on a ballot. As for me being interested in politics, I've been involved at every level, from volunteer to campaign manager, precinct delegate to congressional. I'd like to see more substantive content, and fewer WP:ADVOCACY articles.


 * Redirect to Constitution Party (United States), coverage consists of a spattering of local news articles from his numerous runs for local office, passing mentions in relation to Don Blankenship's presidential campaign, and a singular interview. One thing I would like to note, Ballot Access News is a reliable source, since it is authored by a subject-matter expert. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Devonian Wombat above. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  00:08, 22 February 2021 (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.