- 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 1998 United States Senate election in Idaho. Consensus is against keeping this but I do think the person's name is a plausible search term. See WP:ATD. Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Bill Mauk
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Bill Mauk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are several reasons to have this article removed from Wikipedia:
- Fails WP:GNG. A quick search turned up just about nothing, aside from his current occupation as an attorney in Idaho's capital, Boise. There are no sources from any significant national publications except CNN, although that is only a passing name mention for an election he took part in and ultimately lost.
- Fails WP:NLAWYER. Yes, he was an attorney who represented Claude Dallas, a murderer in Idaho. But, NLAWYER does not explicitly say that this makes one notable.
- Fails WP:NPOL.
- Although he was selected to serve as Chairman of the Idaho Democratic Party, I couldn't find any instance of him doing something that made any national headlines. Idaho Democrats have always been the minority party in the state so this equates to nothing.
- Moreover, in 1998, he was a Democratic candidate for Senate, but failed, and has therefore never been an elected politician.
- As we have seen with failed Congressional nominees in past AfDs, they are not inherently notable solely for losing an election. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, as examples of failed candidates for public office who have had their articles deleted (many of which were nominated by me).
In the event of a redirect, I recommend it to either the 1998 Senate election that he was a nominee in or Claude Dallas, though he is only mentioned in the former and not the latter. –– Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –– Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. –– Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –– Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - It sounds like he litigated at least two widely-publicized cases, and he was a major party (Democrat) nominee for a Senate seat. (Side note: LAWYER is a failed policy and not authoritative.) I think it's a keep, but not a strong keep. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 22:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @ Cosmic Sans: it's okay to lean keep here, but I already rebuked the fact that being a Senate nominee does not contribute to notability per any guideline. unless there's something here that I am missing, it seems that was pointed out for no reason. –– Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I generally agree that being a Senate nominee, in itself, isn't enough. But when you couple that with some high-profile cases, I think it's enough to just limbo under the wire. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 13:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to 1998 United States Senate election in Idaho, doesn't pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 22:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete not notable as either a politician or a lawyer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Candidates for office, even major party ones, are not automatically presumed notable just for being candidates per se — if he doesn't win the election and thereby hold a notable political office, then he needs to show preexisting notability for other reasons that would have already gotten him an article anyway. But of the two "high-profile" cases, one is referenced only to a law blog and the other is referenced to a single wire service article in a smalltown newspaper, which means that this isn't showing anything like enough coverage to make him a notable lawyer — if this were all it took, we'd probably have to keep an article about almost every single lawyer who exists at all. So if somebody with much better access to archived US media coverage than I've got could salvage the article with a lot more quality sourcing, that might change things, but these sources aren't enough and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt his sourcing from having to be better. Bearcat ( talk) 22:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I think our community should find some consistency in when (or why) a redirect to an election page is preferable to a straight deletion for a candidate which lost their election. Should it depend on the type of office sought (i.e. we would create a redirect for all federal election and province/statewide executive races), or only for candidates who make a general election, or some other criteria? -- Enos733 ( talk) 19:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Reply to @ Enos733: Would you be interested in redirecting this instead to the Idaho Democratic Party article, given that Mauk was the party chair? –– Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 07:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Reply. No - the redirect target of 1998 United States Senate election in Idaho is more appropriate. My comment is more about trying to develop a more consistent standard of whether a failed candidate for a national legislature should be closed as a "redirect" or "delete." My sense is that in general, a the presumption for a candidate on the general election ballot for a national legislature (or one who has lost), and doesn't otherwise meet WP:GNP or WP:NPOL should be closed as a redirect, rather than deletion. -- Enos733 ( talk) 08:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there's no blanket rule that would apply exactly the same way to all people. Everybody who ever stood as a candidate for anything isn't always plausible enough as a search term to warrant a redirect at all, and sometimes a redirect would end up sitting on top of somebody else with the same name and a stronger claim of standalone notability, and sometimes the candidate has run for office multiple times in different elections and thus left us with an
WP:XY problem — so it really has to be taken case by case, rather than having a blanket rule across the board.
As well, "delete" and "redirect" aren't actually mutually exclusive results in the first place: even where an AFD comes down on the redirect side, it's still usually more appropriate to delete the existing article and then recreate a new redirect than it is to leave the article's entire edit history sitting behind the redirect waiting for a revert-warrior to flout the consensus, and even where an AFD comes down as a delete, that doesn't forbid anybody from recreating a new redirect after deletion either. So this doesn't really create a major crisis that requires hyperregulation — the KISS principle applies here, and taking it case by case is fine. Bearcat ( talk) 18:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- I understand your point (especially for XY redirects). That said, I would think for an international audience, running for a national office would generally be the most likely reason why someone is searching for a subject. -- Enos733 ( talk) 23:20, 19 February 2019 (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.
- 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 1998 United States Senate election in Idaho. Consensus is against keeping this but I do think the person's name is a plausible search term. See WP:ATD. Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Bill Mauk
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Bill Mauk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are several reasons to have this article removed from Wikipedia:
- Fails WP:GNG. A quick search turned up just about nothing, aside from his current occupation as an attorney in Idaho's capital, Boise. There are no sources from any significant national publications except CNN, although that is only a passing name mention for an election he took part in and ultimately lost.
- Fails WP:NLAWYER. Yes, he was an attorney who represented Claude Dallas, a murderer in Idaho. But, NLAWYER does not explicitly say that this makes one notable.
- Fails WP:NPOL.
- Although he was selected to serve as Chairman of the Idaho Democratic Party, I couldn't find any instance of him doing something that made any national headlines. Idaho Democrats have always been the minority party in the state so this equates to nothing.
- Moreover, in 1998, he was a Democratic candidate for Senate, but failed, and has therefore never been an elected politician.
- As we have seen with failed Congressional nominees in past AfDs, they are not inherently notable solely for losing an election. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, as examples of failed candidates for public office who have had their articles deleted (many of which were nominated by me).
In the event of a redirect, I recommend it to either the 1998 Senate election that he was a nominee in or Claude Dallas, though he is only mentioned in the former and not the latter. –– Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –– Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. –– Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –– Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - It sounds like he litigated at least two widely-publicized cases, and he was a major party (Democrat) nominee for a Senate seat. (Side note: LAWYER is a failed policy and not authoritative.) I think it's a keep, but not a strong keep. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 22:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @ Cosmic Sans: it's okay to lean keep here, but I already rebuked the fact that being a Senate nominee does not contribute to notability per any guideline. unless there's something here that I am missing, it seems that was pointed out for no reason. –– Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I generally agree that being a Senate nominee, in itself, isn't enough. But when you couple that with some high-profile cases, I think it's enough to just limbo under the wire. Cosmic Sans ( talk) 13:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to 1998 United States Senate election in Idaho, doesn't pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 22:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete not notable as either a politician or a lawyer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Candidates for office, even major party ones, are not automatically presumed notable just for being candidates per se — if he doesn't win the election and thereby hold a notable political office, then he needs to show preexisting notability for other reasons that would have already gotten him an article anyway. But of the two "high-profile" cases, one is referenced only to a law blog and the other is referenced to a single wire service article in a smalltown newspaper, which means that this isn't showing anything like enough coverage to make him a notable lawyer — if this were all it took, we'd probably have to keep an article about almost every single lawyer who exists at all. So if somebody with much better access to archived US media coverage than I've got could salvage the article with a lot more quality sourcing, that might change things, but these sources aren't enough and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt his sourcing from having to be better. Bearcat ( talk) 22:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I think our community should find some consistency in when (or why) a redirect to an election page is preferable to a straight deletion for a candidate which lost their election. Should it depend on the type of office sought (i.e. we would create a redirect for all federal election and province/statewide executive races), or only for candidates who make a general election, or some other criteria? -- Enos733 ( talk) 19:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Reply to @ Enos733: Would you be interested in redirecting this instead to the Idaho Democratic Party article, given that Mauk was the party chair? –– Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 07:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Reply. No - the redirect target of 1998 United States Senate election in Idaho is more appropriate. My comment is more about trying to develop a more consistent standard of whether a failed candidate for a national legislature should be closed as a "redirect" or "delete." My sense is that in general, a the presumption for a candidate on the general election ballot for a national legislature (or one who has lost), and doesn't otherwise meet WP:GNP or WP:NPOL should be closed as a redirect, rather than deletion. -- Enos733 ( talk) 08:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there's no blanket rule that would apply exactly the same way to all people. Everybody who ever stood as a candidate for anything isn't always plausible enough as a search term to warrant a redirect at all, and sometimes a redirect would end up sitting on top of somebody else with the same name and a stronger claim of standalone notability, and sometimes the candidate has run for office multiple times in different elections and thus left us with an
WP:XY problem — so it really has to be taken case by case, rather than having a blanket rule across the board.
As well, "delete" and "redirect" aren't actually mutually exclusive results in the first place: even where an AFD comes down on the redirect side, it's still usually more appropriate to delete the existing article and then recreate a new redirect than it is to leave the article's entire edit history sitting behind the redirect waiting for a revert-warrior to flout the consensus, and even where an AFD comes down as a delete, that doesn't forbid anybody from recreating a new redirect after deletion either. So this doesn't really create a major crisis that requires hyperregulation — the KISS principle applies here, and taking it case by case is fine. Bearcat ( talk) 18:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- I understand your point (especially for XY redirects). That said, I would think for an international audience, running for a national office would generally be the most likely reason why someone is searching for a subject. -- Enos733 ( talk) 23:20, 19 February 2019 (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.