This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nhprman(talk | contribs) at 19:06, 28 February 2007(→[[John H. Cox]]: A clear consensus for non-deletion seems to have been reached here). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:06, 28 February 2007 by Nhprman(talk | contribs)(→[[John H. Cox]]: A clear consensus for non-deletion seems to have been reached here)
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. - Nhprman15:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N requires multiple independent sources. And since you insist on dragging Kucinich into this despite his having no relevance to whether Cox should have an article, Kucinich has been elected to the Cleveland City Council, Mayor of Cleveland, served as Clerk of Courts which is usually an elected position and has been elected five times to the House. As compared to Cox whose own article indicates has never won a primary, let alone a local election, let alone a national election. If it gets you all riled up that I called Cox a "perpetually losing candidate" then fine, I withdraw the observation. The point still stands that based on his own self-sourced article and the one independent non-rehashed-press release source that has thus far been presented, he fails WP:N. Otto471116:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wilfully ignoring the "media" page of this guy's site, which lists dozens of NEWS articles (not "news releases," as you've been constantly saying) dating back a year is not playing fair, and is misleading. Please stop that. Ross Perot, between the time he announced and the time of the 1992 General Election, had never won an election, and in fact, had never even bothered to run. Your point? - NhprmanList06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and refrain from hurling false accusations about what I am or am not "ignoring." And it is not my responsibility to do the research to support this article. It is the responsibility of those who want to keep it to improve it to the point where it becomes acceptable under Wikipedia standards. Otto471113:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as Ross Perot goes, even though he, like Kucinich, has nothing to do with whether this article should exist, was a billionaire businessman before declaring his candidacy. Amassing a billion dollars confers notability in my book. If Cox has a billion dollars then I will happily withdraw my nomination. Otto471114:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being a billionaire 1) is not a qualification for the presidency and 2) doesn't confer notability, even under the guideline's standards. - NhprmanList05:47, 27 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]
An independent media outlet covering his press release counts for me as some evidence of his notability, at least at the present time. If say Time, or another such magazine doesn't cover him when it gets closer to the primary and they do a review of all the major candidates, then that might mean something, but since I don't know they haven't, and he does get his name in some papers, I would prefer not to act at this time. Mister.Manticore18:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did a google news search for "John cox" president republican (I figure that was a pretty good way of weeding out the billion other john coxes in the world) and got 11 unique google hits, almost all of which mentioned him in passing, at least one of which didn't mention him at all, and most of which were local to Chicago (where he's from) or Iowa (the one place he's really campaigned). So we've got no real info from these sources other than that he's a "long-shot" (duh), and we seem to have nothing from any news source of national renown, which is odd for someone running for president of the nation. That's what I found on the internet, anyway. I'm not going to vote on this yet. If he really is only one of a handful of people to have filed the appropriate papers for running, then he might be worth keeping just for that, but if this turns out to be like the California recall election, in which everyone and his mother field the paperwork and gave it a shot, then he's probably deleteable. I guess the question is, what stops anyone from running? If there were a couple hundred yahoos wanting to take a shot at the governorship of California with no real chance of winning, I can't see why there wouldn't be 100 times more taking a no-chance run for the presidency, just so they can say "hey, I'm running for President!" What has set this guy apart? In any case, I think he should probably be removed from the 2008 election template for now. -R. fiend15:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just saw Nhprman's link, and that does seem to be a legitimate national story that is actually about the candidate (I didn't see any evidence it was front page, but I could have missed that, also not sure why googlenews didn't display this). However that aricle says "As of early September, 75 people had filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission declaring their intention to run for president," which seems to make Mr. Cox 1 out of 75 rather than 1 out of 10 or so (and since September that 75 has probably increased dramatically). Is there any reason why this guy is more encyclopedic than any of those other folks? -R. fiend16:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beacuse he's actually campaigning, and not pretending to campaign? Because he's amassed dozens of news articles, making him, um, notable? Because he's included on nearly every list among those top 20 (check a Technorati search next time.) As for "long shot," Duncan Hunter, Mike Hucakbee, Tom Tancredo and even Sam Brownback are all often labeled as "long shots," and they are all elected officials, or formerly office-holders. What's the point bringing that up? This MUST NOT be about politics. Although I suspect it is (just a bit.) - NhprmanList06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I mentioned "long shot" is because of all the mentions I could find of him from news sources (not many) that was the only description of him I got. Basically no other words were said about him, other than his name. I realize that being a long shot does not mean he should be excluded (or else we wouldn't list anyone except Obama, Clinton, McCain, Guilliani, and perhaps about 3 others at this stage); I'm not arguing that. My question is, if this guy's only legitimate claim to fame is that he's running for President (unlike everyone else mentioned, who already have articles based on other accomplishments) why is he different from the 75 (now probably more like a few hundred) others? Is it because he's actively campaigning? Perhaps that is the main distiction. I'm not arguing against it, I'm just asking questions here. Are all those other's not campaigning? Do we know that? Does he have "dozens" of news articles about him, as you stated? I've seen one. Sure, I've seen his name mentioned with others, but just as a name on a list, no real info. I'm also cusious as to why he's listed more than these 75 others. Any chance it's an example of his name getting picked up haphazardly by one source, and then repeated by others? I really don't know, but there does seem to be a dearth of information about Mr. Cox that's not from his campaign. That's my main concern. And before you jump down my throat about this, keep in mind I haven't voted to delete the article, and I'm leaning towards keep right now; I just think this matter deserves a certain amount of scrutiny. I guess it boils down to two questions: 1. if this guy is not any more of a serious candidate than a hundred other folks, why is his name being mentioned substantially more than the rest? and 2. if he is a legitimate candidate, why don't we have any real information on him from reliable, neutral sources, with the exception of a single LA Times article? -R. fiend06:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tough crowd when an LA Times article isn't considered notable enough, but I see your point. You can find many articles about this guy on his MEDIA page (note: these are not "press releases" - that's a mischaracterization someone is making.) The fact that one article is linked from the article means it's a poorly done article, not a poor or unknown, non-notable candidate, and that alone shouldn't doom him. Yet, because it has few links, the candidate is being judged by it. Suffice it to say, he seems less trivial than the 75 others, but less known, obviously, than the top or 2nd teir of the GOP candidates. That may change. Let's wait, not rush to delete everyone we don't like being on WP, as some are suggesting. - NhprmanList05:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit of a tough crowd, and wikipedia could use a few more users playing "hardball". But anyway, I looked at his media page and all I saw was 4 blogs and 2 radio interviews. I didn't see the many articles you spoke of, am I missing something? -R. fiend14:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are, but you're not alone in overlooking it, apparently. What you're seeing seems to be the media page. Check this page, which is linked from the front page and includes NUMEROUS articles going back over a year. - NhprmanList15:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Thanks. What the hell, without having actually read any of the news links, I'll go ahead and cast an official keep, not that it really matters. -R. fiend15:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we need to include all declared candidates, because I cannot see what possible basis we have to distinguish beyond our own individual political judgment.DGG03:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if Whacky McDoodle of Fumblebuck Montana files papers to get on his state's primary ballot, he should have an article regardless of whether he otherwise meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Should the hundreds of people whose vanity pages we delete every week all be allowed to stay if they announce their candidacy? Or should declared candidates have to meet the same standards everyone else does? Policies and guidelines are the basis we have to distinguish between notable and non-notable candidates, just like they're how we distinguish between notable and non-notable anything else. Otto471104:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Whacky McDoodle hasn't campaigned relentlessly in each of the three early primary/caucus states, and doesn't have DOZENS of news articles to his (fictional) name, as Cox does. In short, Cox apparently has not created a "vanity page" and your assessment seems dead wrong. This doesn't mean I'm saying he's going to win - let me stress that. That's utterly beside the point. This means he is NOTABLE, that he is being COVERED, that he is CAMPAIGNING in some place other than in his own mind, unlike the many, many of those you note, correctly, whom have simply filed papers. I would note the difference between a "guideline" and a "policy" (notability is the former) and the *huge* caveat in the header of the Notability page saying that it is not "in stone" and its meaning is in dispute. That little fact is frequently ignored by over-eager editors who apply this as some kind of strict, clearly-defined Policy. Rubbish. But even so, Cox fulfills the criteria, if only we would stop trying to zealously stamp out those we believe to be undeserving pretenders. I'm actually curious as to why this "pretender" has been singled out. - NhprmanList06:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Cox has been the non-trivial subject of dozens of news stories (meaning coverage that is significantly above the level of "Also declared is...") then there should be no problem fully sourcing and even expanding this article. So far there has been one source of any substance added to the article and none of the information in the article is actually attributed to that source. The article is sourced entirely by the candidate's web page and self-generated press releases. I have no idea why you've tried repeatedly to make this about politics. I know next to nothing about the politics of this gentleman (which frankly is another failing of the article) and my nomination is based entirely on policy and guidelines. Otto471113:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've repeatedly made this about whether someone is viable or not, or whether they are "a loser" or a "long shot" or how much money they have does make it about politics, rather than policy. These are very subjective standards and have no business in this discussion. As noted below, a person can be notable for losing often (Stassen) and this man was a radio talk show host in Chicago. Notability right there. That this is a poor article is conceded. But can you point to a perfect article here, or are they ALL subject to deletion, since even stubs can be improved? Deletion is not the answer, improvement is. Let's spend our energy as editors improving, not running around deleting articles. - NhprmanList05:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, actually, no I have not made this about whether someone is a viable candidate or not, despite your insistence on dragging in other cnadidates with no chance of winning as if they were in some way relevant to the discussion. I nominated the article because at the time it was nominated it was sourced by the candidate's website and by a press release. You got all hung up on the "perrenially losing candidate" phrase and completely ignored the fact that the article did not meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You're the one making this about political viability, not me. And as for your suggestion that I point to a "perfect article," I am not required to and the suggestion is ridiculous and has nothing to do with the article under discussion. Otto471117:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that this article needs improvements and an expansion. It's clear at this point that this is the consensus, and an outright deletion never made any sense here. I'll let the record stand on your numerous characterizations of the candidate's viability (i.e. comparing the candidate to a fictional "Whacky McDoodle of Fumblebuck Montana") as if that had anything to do with the article at hand here, either. - NhprmanList19:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability has nothing to do with winning or loosing, and one can be notable for being the permanent looser too. The point is to have several non-trivial independent secondary sources. You got them your'in i.a.w. WP:BIO. Possible that WP:BIO is too inclusive, but that is not what we are discussing here AlfPhotoman01:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If X is deleted then Y has to be deleted too" is not a valid argument. If Smith's article meets policy and guidelines then it stays regardless of what happens to Cox's. Otto471104:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand If he had not entered his hat into the Presidential race I would say otherwise to delete, but now the article is in need of expansion and a more detailed biography on the subject. --Ozgod03:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
