Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Jay Richardson Jr

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 keep.  Sandstein  20:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Jay Richardson Jr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This man really isn't notable, other than the fact he is on the ballot for Congress. Also, I think there are some real WP:COI problems considering the user who has most edited the page is named Tjrich2. Illinois2011 (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Simply being a major-party nominee to stand for election to a notable spot doesn't make you notable. Note that the page is highly POV — this is bordering on advertising. If he should win, recreation will be easy. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support for Keeping I disagree. I think winning a nomination for being a political parties candidate for Congress is notable. However, I agree with the serious COI issue. I would vote to keep the article if an established editor(which I am not, BTW) went through the article an made sure it was neutral. LCpl Stephen Bolin, USMC (talk) 05:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the article itself doesn't show it very well. Richardson is the subject of several independant writeups as seen in this Google Search. Not all of the entries apply to him, but the sources that do come up like Fox News are reliable. Article needs improvement to include this. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the google news search above and being a congressional candidate of a major political party. However, the article is extremely POV and needs to be rewritten. I'll see if I can change some things to make it more NPOV. --Banime (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few more sources with coverage of him, and removed the massive POV section in the article. --Banime (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the subject of substantial, independent biographical coverage. Thusly is notable. Needing a bit of copyediting isn't an AfD concern. WilyD 11:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question? If we were to keep it and he loses and fades off into the distance, would this brief unsuccessful run for Congress still be enough to consider him notable? Please don't attack me, I'm just asking because I live in District 12 of Illinois and until just a few days ago, I never even heard of this guy--and I really stay up on politics. Illinois2011 (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Short answer is yes. We're not a news service, we chronicle people, things and events of bother historical and current interest. If I'm researching in historical elections in the future (for example, during the ... next election in that district) I may be interested in the personalities of old. Probably per WP:NOT#NEWS, we're not about providing "current information" but "up to date current & historic information" WilyD 19:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand that Wikipedia is not a news service. But if your opinion is the consensus, that would mean that any person who has ever ran for Congress would deserve an article in the encyclopedia. I'm not sure that's a precedent that we want to set. We'll have to see what the consensus is after the election. Illinois2011 (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:N doesn't care if you win or lose. WP:POLITICIAN talks about lowering the bar a bit if you win, but is explicit that it's not trying to overrule WP:N. Is there some reason to set the bar higher for candidates who lost? I don't see why. I don't know enough American politics to know if standing for congress would "automatically" get you enough coverage for WP:N to be satisfied - I'd be surprised if that's true (certainly not everyone standing for office in my riding last federal election received news coverage). Certainly not every notable politician makes it to office. ;) WilyD 10:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's see if he wins in a few weeks. If he does, that will make him notable. If he doesn't he will fade into oblivion, and then this can be deleted -- as it's already written, let's leave it until then. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the best course to take, if he loses and fades off then I'd support a Delete. --Banime (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, at least until the election. He appears to have similar notability to Green candidate Rodger Jennings in the same election. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose "keep until election" idea If you believe that he's notable now, you should agree with keeping; if not, deletion. Keeping conditional upon his winning is against longestablished policy, especially as (if you don't believe that other sources are sufficient to make him notable) you don't find him notable now. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now & always. This is an encyclopedia. We don't do publicity for candidates, but all federal level races are of permanent historical interest along with the major party candidates (in the US--with a clear 2-party system) are also. If looked for , there will always be sources, print or at least video programs. DGG (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As it is seeming to be the consensus that the man is notable, I am going to move to keep the article, so long as it is properly sourced and written from NPOV. I am troubled that the man himself started the article, but so long as the article is cleaned up, I'll be ok with it. I will say that if everyone who has ever ran this low-profile of a campaign is deserving of an article, we have a lot of work on our hands. But I guess that's what Wikipedia is all about! Illinois2011 (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well he is a major party candidate for congress. If this was a city office or something I'd agree, but anyone for congrees I wouldn't say falls under "low profile campaign" since both major parties will be on the ballot and be recognizable, etc. --Banime (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I guess I should be clearer. By low-profile, I meant he has no signs, no commercials, no billboards, no sort of campaigning that can be seen. It's kind of like the Illinois Senate race of 2004. The Republicans knew Obama was going to win, so they flew in Alan Keyes to run against him, almost just so they could have a candidate on the ballot. I really don't see this as any different, except hardly anyone has ever heard of this guy. Illinois2011 (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2008 (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.