This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HagermanBot(talk | contribs) at 15:30, 25 February 2007(Nhprman didn't sign: "→[[John H. Cox]]: LA Times citation is not from a "press release" and confers notability, though not electability (which is not in dispute)"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:30, 25 February 2007 by HagermanBot(talk | contribs)(Nhprman didn't sign: "→[[John H. Cox]]: LA Times citation is not from a "press release" and confers notability, though not electability (which is not in dispute)")
Delete - a perpetually losing candidate whose article is entirely sourced by his campaign website and press releases. Ghits appear to be directories of candidates and position summaries derived from his press releases. Otto471122:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment - Um, this is an officially registered, running political candidate. You may argue that this article isn't sourced properly but an AfD process is WAY premature at this point, and smacks of political motivation, which I'm SURE it isn't. However, I must say that the fact (opinion, really) that someone may have no chance of winning, which I'm assuming the nominator means to imply by a "perpetual losing candidate" is not justification for deletion. If so, we will be deleting Dennis Kucinich immediately. - NhprmanList00:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Kucinich is an elected member of the United States House of Representatives which confers notability. Cox can't get past a primary, which makes him a perpetual loser. The fact that he's running for president doesn't automatically confer notability. All sorts of fringe candidates file papers but it doesn't make them Wikipedia material. There is no third-party reliable coverage of the man or his candidacy that I can find and an article that is sourced only by the subject's website and press releases is unacceptable no matter who the subject is or what office he's running for. Otto471100:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I'm sorry, but a front page articlein the L.A. Times confers "notabiliy." Wall Street Journal editor Stephen Moore just mentioned him as a candidate, too. These aren't simply notes on a candidate's Website, they amount to coverage. Not blanket coverage like Obama, but it still goes to create notability. Perhaps the article simply needs to take the dozens of article links on the Website and link them directly, thus veryfying these articles really exist (for example, [1]. And Kucinich, be he an elected Congressman or an elected dog cather, has zero chance of winning the Dem. nomination, and is a perpetual loser by your own definition. He has no business listed with other candidates if this is the standard you're setting, although I realize we're actually discussing a more drastic measure - deletion of an article - and not just unlisting him, which is much more draconian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nhprman (talk • contribs) 15:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep While I'm not sure that I think the article on his presidential campaign is appropriate, given that his name has come up in some of the profiles (for example, [2]), I'd have to say keep, at least until further information develops. Mister.Manticore04:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
