- 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 delete. ✗ plicit 13:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Ken Armstrong (politician)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ken Armstrong (politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. The independent sources that are cited are not primarily about the subject. A previous AfD resulted in consensus to delete. Redirect to 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries#Withdrew during the primaries. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep There are two cases of significant, independent coverage in the article: from KIMT and from KXNet. Enough to meet GNG. Nweil ( talk) 18:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nweil, both of these are pretty routine campaign coverage. If that qualifies, then pretty much anyone can get over WP:NPOL. ― Tartan357 Talk 21:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kind of an
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument as I see it.
Nweil (
talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nweil, that's not WP:OTHERSTUFF. I haven't referenced another deletion discussion. I'm saying we have WP:NPOL for a reason (it's a guideline), and it does set requirements for unelected candidates, which preclude routine campaign coverage from satisfying notability. Perhaps more importantly, the subject's notability does not appear to have been significalty better-established since the last AfD was closed with a consensus to delete. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Where in
WP:NPOL does it exclude campaign coverage?
Nweil (
talk) 23:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Nweil, please read
Bearcat's remarks in the previous AfD. They put it pretty well:
The key to making a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article on candidacy grounds is to show that his campaign coverage has exploded so far beyond the norm that he's got a credible claim to being much more special than other candidates
. ― Tartan357 Talk 23:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- With all due respect to
Bearcat, that's not policy.
Nweil (
talk) 23:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Nweil,
WP:NPOL is a guideline, which we should follow in most cases. If you read their full remarks, you'll see how they're applying NPOL:
Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so such coverage does not automatically get the person over GNG — if all you had to do to give a candidate an exemption from having to pass NPOL was to show some evidence that campaign coverage existed, then every candidate would always get that exemption and nobody would ever actually have to pass NPOL at all anymore.
― Tartan357 Talk 23:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be "policy" — guidelines such as
WP:NPOL are every bit as binding as any policy. It's a standard principle of Wikipedia, in fact, that policies tell us what to do while guidelines explain how to do it, so they work in tandem, and guidelines cannot be ignored just because they're branded as "guidelines" instead of "policies". You obey the policies and the guidelines together, period.
At any rate, every candidate in every election everywhere really, truly can always show some evidence of campaign coverage — so if two pieces of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt an unelected candidate for political office from WP:NPOL on the grounds that he had passed WP:GNG instead, then nobody would ever have to pass NPOL at all anymore, and NPOL would thus be entirely meaningless. So getting into a candidate into Wikipedia is not just "two pieces of campaign coverage = GNG booya screw all y'all haters boiiiiii" — making an unelected candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article most certainly does require either evidence that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons completely independent of the candidacy, which would already have gotten him into Wikipedia anyway, or evidence that his campaign generated such an unusual depth and range of coverage that he can credibly claim to be a special case of significantly greater notability than most other candidates in some way that passes the ten year test for enduring significance. Bearcat ( talk) 23:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Nweil,
WP:NPOL is a guideline, which we should follow in most cases. If you read their full remarks, you'll see how they're applying NPOL:
- With all due respect to
Bearcat, that's not policy.
Nweil (
talk) 23:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Nweil, please read
Bearcat's remarks in the previous AfD. They put it pretty well:
- Where in
WP:NPOL does it exclude campaign coverage?
Nweil (
talk) 23:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kind of an
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument as I see it.
Nweil (
talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable not-even-really-a-candidate. SportingFlyer T· C 23:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 23:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 23:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG, doesn't meet WP:NPOL either. Mztourist ( talk) 09:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't meet GNG in my view. Intothat darkness 13:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and doesn't qualify WP:NPOL. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 12:44, 15 May 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.
- 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 delete. ✗ plicit 13:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Ken Armstrong (politician)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ken Armstrong (politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. The independent sources that are cited are not primarily about the subject. A previous AfD resulted in consensus to delete. Redirect to 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries#Withdrew during the primaries. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep There are two cases of significant, independent coverage in the article: from KIMT and from KXNet. Enough to meet GNG. Nweil ( talk) 18:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nweil, both of these are pretty routine campaign coverage. If that qualifies, then pretty much anyone can get over WP:NPOL. ― Tartan357 Talk 21:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kind of an
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument as I see it.
Nweil (
talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nweil, that's not WP:OTHERSTUFF. I haven't referenced another deletion discussion. I'm saying we have WP:NPOL for a reason (it's a guideline), and it does set requirements for unelected candidates, which preclude routine campaign coverage from satisfying notability. Perhaps more importantly, the subject's notability does not appear to have been significalty better-established since the last AfD was closed with a consensus to delete. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Where in
WP:NPOL does it exclude campaign coverage?
Nweil (
talk) 23:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Nweil, please read
Bearcat's remarks in the previous AfD. They put it pretty well:
The key to making a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article on candidacy grounds is to show that his campaign coverage has exploded so far beyond the norm that he's got a credible claim to being much more special than other candidates
. ― Tartan357 Talk 23:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- With all due respect to
Bearcat, that's not policy.
Nweil (
talk) 23:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Nweil,
WP:NPOL is a guideline, which we should follow in most cases. If you read their full remarks, you'll see how they're applying NPOL:
Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so such coverage does not automatically get the person over GNG — if all you had to do to give a candidate an exemption from having to pass NPOL was to show some evidence that campaign coverage existed, then every candidate would always get that exemption and nobody would ever actually have to pass NPOL at all anymore.
― Tartan357 Talk 23:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to be "policy" — guidelines such as
WP:NPOL are every bit as binding as any policy. It's a standard principle of Wikipedia, in fact, that policies tell us what to do while guidelines explain how to do it, so they work in tandem, and guidelines cannot be ignored just because they're branded as "guidelines" instead of "policies". You obey the policies and the guidelines together, period.
At any rate, every candidate in every election everywhere really, truly can always show some evidence of campaign coverage — so if two pieces of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt an unelected candidate for political office from WP:NPOL on the grounds that he had passed WP:GNG instead, then nobody would ever have to pass NPOL at all anymore, and NPOL would thus be entirely meaningless. So getting into a candidate into Wikipedia is not just "two pieces of campaign coverage = GNG booya screw all y'all haters boiiiiii" — making an unelected candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article most certainly does require either evidence that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons completely independent of the candidacy, which would already have gotten him into Wikipedia anyway, or evidence that his campaign generated such an unusual depth and range of coverage that he can credibly claim to be a special case of significantly greater notability than most other candidates in some way that passes the ten year test for enduring significance. Bearcat ( talk) 23:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Nweil,
WP:NPOL is a guideline, which we should follow in most cases. If you read their full remarks, you'll see how they're applying NPOL:
- With all due respect to
Bearcat, that's not policy.
Nweil (
talk) 23:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Nweil, please read
Bearcat's remarks in the previous AfD. They put it pretty well:
- Where in
WP:NPOL does it exclude campaign coverage?
Nweil (
talk) 23:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Kind of an
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument as I see it.
Nweil (
talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable not-even-really-a-candidate. SportingFlyer T· C 23:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 23:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 23:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG, doesn't meet WP:NPOL either. Mztourist ( talk) 09:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't meet GNG in my view. Intothat darkness 13:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and doesn't qualify WP:NPOL. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 12:44, 15 May 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.