- 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 of the debate was delete. RasputinAXP c 20:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nickname for a non-notable political candidate, but since this pushes the bounds of notability, I am bringing it here instead of prodding. According to Washington_gubernatorial_election,_2004, Michael had 5,687 votes to (somewhat narrowly) lose the nomination of the Libertarian party. I don't believe this meets WP:BIO, although references to press, etc., might sway me. "Some people read his proposed program" doesn't do it for me. Delete, but if kept it most definitely needs to be moved. bikeable (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:BIO. This isn't merely a guy who failed to win the election. This isn't merely a guy who failed to win a nomination to compete in the election. This is a guy who failed to win the nomination of the Libertarian Party. The poor bastard had a third the votes of a Democratic candidate who ran under the name of "Mike The Mover". Any more non-notable and you have the guy who ran a sticker campaign against the incumbent mayor and racked up fewer votes than Mickey Mouse. RGTraynor 16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Failed to get the nomination in a party that routinely wins 1% of the vote in the general election. More non-notable would be the loser in the Socialist Workers Party primary. Fan1967 17:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. —Wh
ouk (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Libertarians are frequently ignored by the news media. In 2004 only people who selected the Libertarian ballot in Washington State in the September Primary Election were allowed to choose between Michael Nelson and Ruth Bennet. Nelson received 43 percent of the Libertarian vote. Bennet received 56 % and won the Libertarian nomination and then went on to represent the Libertarian Party in the November General Election. Since only about 1 percent of the voters had selected the Libertarian ballot and over 50 percent of the voters selected the Democratic ballot, it is unfair to compare Mike the Movers Democract vote total with Michael Nelson's vote total.
Most people who run as Libertarians know that they are not going to win their election race, but they run because they think that it is so important to be a spokes person for individual liberty. In the political arena, people who run as Libertarians are like people who are willing to die in battle because they believe that individual liberty is so important. When the Libertarian Party lost its major party status in 2004 in Washington State (leaving only the Democrats and Republicans as major parties) the news media did not even feel this loss of choice was newsworthy and did not significantly inform the voters of the loss of this third choice. The big significance of Goodspaceguy is that he is actively advocating for the coming Orbital Space Colonies which will be the huge accomplishment in our new Twenty-first Century. Our technological advancement is continuing at rapid speed. In the 20th Century we humans went from the Horse and Buggy Age to the beginnings of the Space Age in only 57 years - In 1957, the orbiting Russian Sputnik announced the beginnings of the Space Age to the people of Earth. People just do not realize the fantastic future that is coming. Libertarian Democrat Michael Nelson (goodspaceguy) is attempting to contribute. Michael G. goodspaceguy Nelson 02:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not a debate on whether he is a good person, or is trying to contribute to society. The question is whether he is a notable person. In general, losing candidates fail on that score unless they have some other claim to fame, or managed to lose in a noteworthy fashion. Neither appears to be the case here. You may also want to review the discussion about autobiographical articles at WP:AUTO. - Fan1967 12:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Information sources not provided. I reject NN as an argument because it is too subjective. DanielZimmerman 06:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Many candidates are considered notable because they win. Often they win because they have been financed by special interests. After their victories, they are indebted to those who financed them, and it is payback time. It is then the taxpayers who provide the payback to the special interests who financed the winning candidates. I, goodspaceguy, decided not to solicit special interest money and since the voters tend to vote for the big spenders, I, except for one time, have always been the loser in my attempt to raise the living standard in our society. Michael G. goodspaceguy Nelson 01:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Indeed, candidates for legislative office do become notable per Wikipedia guidelines by virtue of winning. That being said, Fan1967's comments are spot on. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and I'm sure that as you must respect that legislatures have rules and laws governing their operation, so do we. Indeed, there's a standard delineated on WP:VAIN: "The best way to increase the level of one's wide ranging interest to others is to first actually do something of interest itself, then wait for someone else who has a neutral interest in what you have done to write about it. Attempting to raise this type of interest in one's self or in one's associates via Wikipedia is putting the cart before the horse. Since we are all inherently biased towards ourselves, it is usually best to await the day when someone whom we have never met might choose to write such an article about ourselves, thus proving beyond a doubt that such a neutral interest does indeed exist." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public advocacy forum. RGTraynor 14:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Knowledge about people who have tried to help but who have lost is usually lost.
People usually don't write about those who have lost. That leaves only the loser to write about the attempts to defend individual liberty. The media usually ignores the Loseatarians. It is up to the Loseatarians to spread knowledge about what they attempted to do. Others will write about the winners. 206.188.48.177 18:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable. POV.--Adrift* 17:06, 15 May 2006 (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.