Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Powell (politician)

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 Libertarian Party of Oklahoma. There is a pretty strong consensus against keeping this. On balance where a subject is a plausible search term I tend to be sympathetic to redirects. See also WP:ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Powell (politician)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable politician - no successful run for office. Does not meet WP:NPOL PRehse (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Am I missing something here?? Because the article looks surprisingly well sourced to satisfy WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG. Powell is not just a politician who did not successfully run for office, there are other reasons for him being notable. Leo1pard (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which are?PRehse (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... Mentioned in the article, like what positions he held. Leo1pard (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those positions give a presumption of notability. SportingFlyer talk 10:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean serving a two-year term as Chair of the Oklahoma Libertarian Party, a minor party with zero elected representation, that is not a position that confers notability in any sense. AusLondonder (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Libertarian Party of Oklahoma as the obvious link) - the individual hasn't held any positions that would satisfies WP:NPOL, either his charity work or county clerk. A national Chairman of the Libertarian party would seem to be significant enough, but I'm not sure that holds true for a State chairman. His journalist work hasn't been covered enough by others to qualify by that route. WP:NPOL restrictions, deliberately, are some of the harshest notability requirements to meet, and I don't believe he meets either them, or any other set. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy Sakaimover (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Strike sock. wumbolo ^^^ 21:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nosebagbear. He fails WP:NPOL, but most importantly the article fails WP:PROMO - it was created in October to support his gubernatorial bid. Furthermore, the WP:GNG claims above are incorrect - the article is source-bombed, many articles are about the political party or overly short/routine ("small party candidate enters race"), and the ones that might show notability are interviews. Not all is lost though, we can keep some of the information on him on the party's page. SportingFlyer talk 10:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Libertarian Party of Oklahoma or Oklahoma gubernatorial election, 2018. Per SportingFlyer and Nosebagbear. Fails WP:NPOL Bkissin (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep I believe that we should procedurally keep all candidates for election who are nominated for deletion within 30 days of the election, unless the article violates any other Wikipedia policies. If the subject does not win their election, we can revisit the discussion on November 7. --Enos733 (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Enos733: Do you envisage this applying to candidates for every election in the world? Or just U.S. elections? AusLondonder (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this should apply for every general election in the world. In the past, we have people who argue to wait for a week (or more) to see if WP:NPOL will be met within the time a deletion review takes place, and second, at some point, the decision to keep or delete an article becomes political (in itself). If our community can select a period of time to pause debates about political candidates, I think it is a wise position to take. I think 30 days before a general election is an appropriate period. --Enos733 (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly disagree, as this could open us up a window of spam right before the election period, and absolutely blow up AfD right after an election anywhere. Deleted articles can be restored on request, and articles can be draftifyed before being moved to mainspace. SportingFlyer talk 07:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This also isn't really the forum for such a "30 day bubble" - it would be major enough as to need a proper RfC, not WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. I'm aware of the "wait a week" bit (also seen in new released films etc), and indeed have participated, but that's more in the sense of "an AfD is a week-long, I'll wait till the 7th day to cast my !vote) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the point elsewhere, and there was some discussion in 2016 about this concept. What we know is a few things: 1) unelected candidates cannot be speedily deleted and must come to AfD. 2) if a closer sees anything more than strong consensus, the closer would rather relist than an early close (and I have seen multiple relists). This could extend an AfD to 14 or even 21 days, and with every day closer to the election, more editors will adopt a "wait and see" attitude. And, while it is easy to restore a deleted article, there is a cost to debating subjects who may be notable depending how votes are counted (while in the meantime, articles are up in the mainspace. Enos733 (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with this concept. Keeping non-notable candidate articles until the election passes gives undue weight, importance and promotion for political candidates in the leadup to an election. Wikipedia is a neutral platform that shouldn't be exploited by partisans looking to get their candidate a few more votes before election day. The Democratic nominee is not notable enough for an article and neither is Powell. Bkissin (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There has definitely never been any Wikipedia consensus to suspend (or apply a moratorium on initiating) AFDs for unelected candidates just because election day happened to be close. As SportingFlyer correctly points out, a rule like that would leave a CAMPAIGN BROCHURE SPAM FREE-FOR-ALL! period when every candidate could suddenly flood us with even more blatantly advertorial campaign spam than usual because it wouldn't be deletable until after election day. In reality, the only hard concession we make to election day at all is that if a candidate's AFD is still open on election day and the candidate wins, then we just speedy close the discussion as soon as a reliable source confirms the election declaration — if the election is only a couple of days away, then we have leeway to consider deferring closure for that extra day or two, but even then we don't have a consensus requiring that. And we don't defer initiation of the AFD discussion, or procedurally close it and then reinitiate a second AFD after election day if they lose — we still just proceed with the existing discussion. The proximity of election day has no bearing on the keepability or deletability of any article — even if the possibility exists that we might have to recreate the article again in just one or two weeks, we still handle it the same way as we would at any other time — because handling it any other way creates a loophole for candidates to abuse the process for advertorial purposes. Bearcat (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect Despite the appearance of a "well-sourced" article, in reality, most are trivial and routine mentions with nothing to satisfy our notability requirements. Fails WP:NPOL. Being chair of a minor party for two years or a county clerk are absolutely not positions that confer notability. AusLondonder (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Way too many primary sources, and not nearly enough reliable ones that are substantively about him, to deem him notable just for being a candidate for office. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL Cabayi (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsuccessful political candidate who otherwise is not notable. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then redirect. For the small source base, this article is relatively well-written. Perhaps paid or by the same person. But at any rate, it is an article floating on fluff. But rather than losing useful information, I wish the essence could move along with the redirect. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 03:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not passing notability requirements for politician or our general guidelines. If we go with a redirect, Oklahoma gubernatorial election, 2018 would be my choice. WikiVirusC^(talk) 07:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nosebagbear. The page is full of language that doesn't seem to impartially explain who he is (language such as he "is regarded as the leading contender"). Although obviously this can be Ammended, the article feels more like a promotional page with a lot of sources just packed in and unlike some notable failed candidates it would be more appropriate to incorporate his page either into the 2018 Oklahoma gubernatorial election page or the Oklahoma Libertarian Party page. Greenleader(2) (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is first on the ballot and should stay until the election is over at bare minimum. The article is well cited and contains more than some other pages.

Being first on the ballot doesn't mean anything. If it doesn't warrant remaining in the future why should it be given a temporary position? Our job is to act as an encylopedia, not attempt to provide equal coverage for elections. Reading WP:OTHERSTUFF would be worthwhile - being better than other pages doesn't justify it. More importantly, though there are high quality sources, they don't meet the various requirements (sources based as him on a candidate not meeting NPOL etc). As a side note, please remember to sign posts Nosebagbear (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: his chance of winning the governor's race is <0.1 percent, so I don't think it's worth a redirect, given the common name of "Chris Powell". The article also fails WP:PROMO with content such as: "Since that time he has been campaigning throughout the state[17][18][19] and is regarded^{[by whom?]} as the leading contender[20][21]" (??). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP would argue for the redirect. Especially since the title has (politician) in it, so someone looking for another Chris Powell wouldn't be redirected to the election. You may still vote Delete and I don't have anything against it, but your reasons are slightly flawed. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 20:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong MERGE to either the Libertarian Party (United States) as the first Lib. party candidate on the gubernatorial ballot in Oklahoma OR Oklahoma gubernatorial election, 2018 for obvious reasons:

Per WP:NPOL, a candidate must exceed coverage than expected for a campaign.

Per WP:GNG, a subject must be covered extensively by the media (though NPOL overrides this, as the coverage can't be solely WP:MILL campaign coverage.

Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, which would typically argue that a REDIRECT to the election he or she is notable for is sufficient, until they win the election – otherwise, it should be maintained as a redirect.

See the following AFDs for similar results to this:

Bill Lee – Tennessee businessman and Gubernatorial candidate, redirected to the 2018 election

Shawn Moody – Maine businessman and Gubernatorial candidate, redirected to the 2018 election

Tony Campbell – Maryland businessman and Senate candidate, redirected to the 2018 election

So please, do not let this article stay as is. The revision history will be maintained with a redirect, so in the likely scenario that he wins (though not guaranteed - see WP:CRYSTAL), the article can be restored to its current state.

Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 04:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oklahoma gubernatorial election, 2018. Definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. And he's a Libertarian, he's not going to win. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Libertarian Party of Oklahoma. Unelected politician, state chair of a minor party isn't enough to get a free pass to notability. Coverage seems to be run-of-the-mill election-related fare. Carrite (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Libertarian Party of Oklahoma. Deserves more than one sentence there, since he did get on the ballot. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.