- 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 merge to United_States_Senate_election_in_Illinois,_2010. The Keep rationales are unconvincing. Clearly, this can be re-created should Labno become undeniably notable Black Kite (t) (c) 22:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Labno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While I wholehartedly support third party politics in the US, Labno fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN due to the lack of independent sources and a lack of election to public office. TM 20:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks TM. I disagree. Candidate meets primary notability criterion (ie, candidate does not fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN) so the article should not be deleted. Candidate Labno is the 4th of 4 named candidates on the ballot for United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010 certified for the ballot by Illinois State Board of Elections on August 27, 2010 according to Associated Press in Chicago Tribune Aug. 27, 2010. Since that date he has been routinely referenced by independent sources alongside Mark Kirk, Alexi Giannoulias, and LeAlan Jones thus meeting primary notability criterion. See: Daily Herald Sept. 17, 2010; Chicago Sun-Times Sept. 10, 2010; and ABC-7 WLS-TV Chicago Aug. 27, 2010. The Chicago Tribune also recently began including Labno in their polling on the race Tribune Senate Poll, Sept. 2, 2010. Cardinal91 (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS - I am the article's primary author. Note also that the article is currently listed as a stub since the ballot access was first granted by Illinois State Board of Elections on Aug. 27, 2010 -- independent sources will accumulate in coming weeks. Thanks. Cardinal91 (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately that coverage fails WP:BIO. I am fine with moving this to your userspace until Labno does pass the standard.--TM 23:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still disagree. Keep. (I am the article's primary author) Cardinal91 (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately that coverage fails WP:BIO. I am fine with moving this to your userspace until Labno does pass the standard.--TM 23:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS - I am the article's primary author. Note also that the article is currently listed as a stub since the ballot access was first granted by Illinois State Board of Elections on Aug. 27, 2010 -- independent sources will accumulate in coming weeks. Thanks. Cardinal91 (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Labno seems to have been the subject of multiple independent news articles regarding his candidacy for Senate and thus meets the basic criteria set out by WP:BIO. Gobonobo T C 01:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep looks like there are several independant articles at this point.VikÞor | Talk 22:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources are those? The only one is from Project Vote Smart. The other ones either simply mention his candidacy or are from his own website.--TM 23:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI - article is being updated from independent sources as information becomes available. Currently only two of the eight sources reference the candidate's website. Cheers. Cardinal91 (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The independent sources trivially coverage Labno. They mention his candidacy and that is about it. Still fails WP:GNG.--TM 16:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article does not fail WP:GNG given that at least WLS-TV 8/27/10, Daily Herald 9/17/10, Independent Political Report 8/26/10 and Chicago Sun-Times 9/19/10 references include candidate in significant fashion even if he is not the main topic of each article. All four of those references are reliable and independent of the subject. Therefore I continue to maintain that subject is suitable for inclusion as a stand-alone article. Thanks! Cardinal91 (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The independent sources trivially coverage Labno. They mention his candidacy and that is about it. Still fails WP:GNG.--TM 16:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI - article is being updated from independent sources as information becomes available. Currently only two of the eight sources reference the candidate's website. Cheers. Cardinal91 (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources are those? The only one is from Project Vote Smart. The other ones either simply mention his candidacy or are from his own website.--TM 23:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The ABC, Independent Political Report sources are trivial. The source marked Daily Herald is a link to the Labno website and the Sun Times is a blog. I am going to fix that in a moment, but you need to remember that the trivial sources only cover his campaign positions and nothing more. For a biography, a source cannot just cover a candidate's political positions in an election campaign, but at least details about the person and their career.--TM 04:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At least 1/3 of the ABC article covered Labno and the entirety was about the Libertarian Party as a whole earning its spots on the ballot. I fail to see how that much coverage in an article is "trivial". Further, Lynn Sweet is the main political reporter for the Sun-Times stationed in their White House bureau. The link you removed went to an article housed on her section of their newspaper website by another of their political reporters named Abdon Pollasch. Just because the word "blog" appears in the URL doesn't always mean it's a local-yokel. :) I'll see if I can find another link to that same Sun-Times article. The information cited in the source was pertinent to the article. Thanks Namiba. Cardinal91 (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It could be argued that any ballot-listed candidate for the U.S. Senate is notable, but I don't agree - and that's the only basis on which Labno qualifies. The sources provided in the article are not very significant. The two Sun-Times articles are about other people, with passing references to Lagno. The story from the Independent Political Report is mostly about Labno, but I don't know if it is a Reliable Source. Project Vote Smart lists info about everyone on every ballot right down to dogcatcher; being listed there does not imply notability, and the information they publish is mostly self-supplied and thus not independent. The Daily Herald piece is about Labno's candidacy and the ABC item is about him getting put on the ballot; in my mind those stories are about the election, not about him, and do not make him notable per WP:POLITICIAN, but others may disagree. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh so keep per MelanieN's notability argument. Five clear reliable sources and two voter guides is plenty for a Libertarian who has obtained ballot access. JJB 07:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010 per WP:Wikipedia is not a source for election candidate biographies. I interpret routine election coverage to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Also, the coverage about the candidate is in the context of the election, so (per WP:BLP1E) redirect to the election article. Location (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make sense. "Routine election coverage" is the source for many a candidate article on WP. Cardinal91 (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically it means that a person has to be notable for something other than running for a position to be notable. He or she has to be covered in non-election related sources. Take the example of Tom Clements in South Carolina. He is the Green Party candidate for US Senate and has received coverage for that position, but also is a widely recognized and influential environmental activist, which is the real reason he is notable. Labno is not notable because the only coverage of him is from his campaign for the Senate. Simply being a candidate and receiving routine press coverage because of that campaign is not an indication of long-lasting notability.--TM 21:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't make sense. Here's why: As a for instance Joe Walsh, Scott Harper, Bob Dold, Joel Pollak, and Dan Seals are all candidates for Congress from Illinois. None of them is known for anything other than being candidates for Congress. There are many others in Illinois and around the US in similar situations. If simply being a candidate and receiving routine press coverage because of that campaign is not an indication of long-lasting notability why are there articles for them? Do those other candidates only have articles because of they're party affiliations? Please clarify the definition of the rules you're referring to because they appear to be unequally applied. For the matter, why is there an article about Labno's predecessor as Libertarian candidate for Senate from Illinois -- Larry Stafford?
Keep.(I'm the original author.) Cardinal91 (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS might answer your question. Those articles probably need to be merged and redirected as well.--TM 23:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't make sense. Here's why: As a for instance Joe Walsh, Scott Harper, Bob Dold, Joel Pollak, and Dan Seals are all candidates for Congress from Illinois. None of them is known for anything other than being candidates for Congress. There are many others in Illinois and around the US in similar situations. If simply being a candidate and receiving routine press coverage because of that campaign is not an indication of long-lasting notability why are there articles for them? Do those other candidates only have articles because of they're party affiliations? Please clarify the definition of the rules you're referring to because they appear to be unequally applied. For the matter, why is there an article about Labno's predecessor as Libertarian candidate for Senate from Illinois -- Larry Stafford?
- Basically it means that a person has to be notable for something other than running for a position to be notable. He or she has to be covered in non-election related sources. Take the example of Tom Clements in South Carolina. He is the Green Party candidate for US Senate and has received coverage for that position, but also is a widely recognized and influential environmental activist, which is the real reason he is notable. Labno is not notable because the only coverage of him is from his campaign for the Senate. Simply being a candidate and receiving routine press coverage because of that campaign is not an indication of long-lasting notability.--TM 21:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make sense. "Routine election coverage" is the source for many a candidate article on WP. Cardinal91 (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect per MelanieN. Routine election coverage like this is not enough for us to write a proper biography about a person. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Location. In the Chicago Tribune poll cited above by Cardinal, Labno was at 3% ... in a poll with a margin of error of ± 4%. This shows that he has not been a significant factor in this election so far. He has received only minimal media coverage. (Although this is not an essential part of my argument, I notice that his campaign web site has no indication of any public or media appearances he may be making.) If he later becomes a significant factor in the election, the article can be broken out again as a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A new poll is out today, and Labno is still at 3% in a poll with a margin of error of ± 4%. [1] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that polling indicates a level of notability one way or another. Polling is at best temporary and artificial and at worst biased (see push polling). Since we can't comment on anything notable he has done outside of his campaign, he still doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN.--TM 19:09, 3 October 2010 (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.