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. The issue here is not whether this is self-promotion or not -- the issue is lack of multiple non-trivial mentions from independent sources. utcursch | talk 12:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Charles Smith

[edit]

Keep, but reduced links to it. Presuming he appears on a ballot anywhere, he should be able to be found here, because people will be curious who he is. But he doesn't need to be given the treatment of being a full-fledged candidate, by having all other articles about the primary or candidates link to him along side the real candidates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.31.101 (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Does not meet WP:BIO for notability in political figures and violates WP:SOAP for self-promotion. Merely filing FEC papers does not qualify for notability. See User:Mikesmth. Djma12 ^(talk) 01:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion. Mr. Smith has not demonstrated his own notability. Just filing with the FEC is insufficient basis for inclusion in Wikipedia; filing carries no guarantee of ballot status. —Sesel 02:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable candidate campaigning in one state for a nationwide office. This has resulted in failing to gain other than local media coverage. Article reads like a campaign brochure, non-encyclopedic. - Nhprman 03:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Yaf 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, but cut most of the content. Article contains two citations from mainstream press. Smith may not be notable when judged on a nationwide scale, but his Oregon campaign appears just as notable to Oregonians as numerous articles of local significance. In addition, his approach to the Presidential race sounds unique, notable for its contrast with other candidates. I agree the current article reads way too much like a campaign brochure; the Platform section should be cut in its entirety, and much of the other sections as well. (Disclosure: I'm from Oregon, but know nothing about Smith beyond what I found via this WP article.) -Pete 04:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion. /Blaxthos 05:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, slf promotion an he wants to be president? uuuuurgh. --Zedco 08:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User's 3rd edit. Tyrenius 09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Self promotion, and basically just his points of view on some issues and his ambition. Not worthy of an article. Bensmith53 09:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-evident campaign page, and doesn't stand a snowball's chance in the race. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While he does not meet the criteria for notability that in itself is not a criteria for deletion and should not stand alone. However, this article also does not adhere to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. That is why I believe it should be deleted. --Cyrus Andiron ^t/_c 14:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can any of those supporting deletion please comment on my remarks, and on whether my deletion of about 2/3 of the material impacts their position? -Pete 14:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's certainly shorter, but the (true) phrase in the article, "Smith is unknown outside of Oregon, and has no previous experience in political office," proves non-notability. An article on a movie actor who simply said he was an aspiring actor who hoped to be a movie star, but admitted he wasn't even actively seeking film roles, wouldn't meet muster for an article here, either, for the reasons Djma12 cited above. - Nhprman 15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally: How should we deal with the John H. Cox article? Djma12 ^(talk) 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, another article's possible lack of validity is irrelevant to this one's possible deletion. That said, this is an eggregious and obvious case of a non-notable non-candidate with zero exposure nationally, while Cox is an increasingly irrelevent candidate who is at least making pretentions about campaigning nationally, and at least has done it in the past. But deal with that one on its own merits, and not just because this is a bad article. - Nhprman 04:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see my position is rather shaky, but the whole discussion seems perched on a slippery slope. Self-promotion? Much of politics is essentially self promotion. If you adopt that criteria, you need to be prepared to remove John Cox, and Michael Savage, Mike Gravel, Al Sharpton and probably all the Third Party candidates.

I would propose you think more in terms of a broader wiki “mission.” Although it’s not practical to publish an all-encompassing catalogue – it should be the objective to capture meaningful perspectives and serve as a resource for voters to assess candidates on the basis of political philosophy. From that perspective it could be argued that my presence is more meaningful as a philosophical contrast than the myriad social conservatives who offer little meaningful distinction between their positions.

The internet and wikipedia hold a promise of increased information and “democracy” of ideas and access. You seem to be working contrary to that objective, ironically falling into patterns established by the conventional media that wikipedia aspires to replace.

Mikesmth 18:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You raise some good points. On the other hand, Wikipedia isn't here to provide a platform for your philosophical contrast. We're just here to write a really good encyclopedia. As far as self-promtion, well, "That other guy over there is doing it" doesn't really hold water as an argument around here. Since interested third parties are involved, I would suggest you refrain from editing your own article and discuss any changes you want to make on the article's talk page. Katr67 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Pete. Comments like "doesn't stand a snowball's chance in the race" don't do anything to support the Delete argument. Scienter 19:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pete, with the caveat that outside editors maintain the article and not the candidate, per my comments above. (Full disclosure--another Oregonian here, but it's rare I vote for anybody of Smith's party.) Thinking in terms of Wikipedia being a useful resource, I would expect that interest in outsider candidates would be strong enough that a person searching for this candidate might expect to find an article on him, especially since his candidate profile is listed in the Baltimore Sun. Heck he's even got several interlanguage wikilinks. Or alternatively, a redirect to the page on 2008 Republican candidates that has a paragraph on him. Katr67 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the caveat Katr67 has attached to their Keep opinion. Scienter 12:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It doesn't look like this fellow's thought of as notable IN Oregon either, given that a directed search has only 125 (not entirely relevant) G-hits [1]. To address Mr. Smith's altogether-too-familiar rebuttal, Wikipedia is a private website with the right to decide what it is. The Wikimedia Foundation has decided it is an encyclopedia ... not a blog, not a soapbox for self-promotion, not some fuzzy New Age outreach program. Many of those exist, and I suggest that this is less about What Wikipedia Could Become than in hijacking a popular and highly visible website for promotional purposes. RGTraynor 20:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. There are a lot of minor presidential candidates who have no chance to win, that shouldn't be a reason to remove this article. If this candidate has enough coverage to have a fully-cited non-stubbed article, then keep. I will change my vote if this is rewritten according to that and I am notified on my talk page. Without this, anyone could run for president with no campaigning/notability and not even try to win just to get a Wikipedia article. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 21:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is better with Pete's cuts (less violation of WP:SOAP), but still fails to meet WP:BIO notability. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "has minimal background as a politician," If he gets the party nomination, he'll be notable. DGG 04:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election Republican candidates (which actually does not have a paragraph on him, though he's link in the template at the bottom of the page). His name is a possible search term, and if we're going to remove the stand-alone article, at least send readers somewhere useful. Lyrl ^Talk _C 18:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a declared and active (campaigning) candidate for President of the United States. The fact that he isn't a current office holder or subjective determinations that he "doesn't have a snowballs chance" are completely irrelevant. Smith has received press coverage and a lot of attention on the internet, and is embarking on a novel endeavor. Subjective determinations on how much press coverage is needed to justify an article are shaky at best, as the mainstream media tends to focus on the horse-race aspects of an election. Active campaigning is enough, and the "self-promotion" claim is basically irrelevant when it comes to political candidates. I'll close with this: when in doubt, keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.164.116.249 (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC). — 172.164.116.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Active campaign is one thing, but his strategy of campaigning for a national office in one state (the equivalent of wanting to be a professional boxer but refusing to get into a boxing ring) makes him non-notable, and it can hardly be seen as "actively" campaigning. His coverage has been limited mostly to local papers curious about his Quixotic run. I'm extremely sympathetic to anyone who wants to run, and if he became notable for his longshot run, that's one thing, but many other candidates are putting efforts into all early primary states and have gotten coverage for doing so, making them notable. - Nhprman 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Official and potential 2008 United States presidential election Republican candidates per Lyrl. I do have a question, though: how does one conclude this is self-promotion? The article was created[2] by an account that is not a single-purpose account and generally edits articles related to the Western United States.[3] It's possible that somewhere along the way, Mr. Smith actually edited this article to promote himself, but should that claim be made so lightly and without evidence? If incorrect, that claim may be offensive both to Mr. Smith and this article's creator. What happened to assuming good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary? Have I perhaps missed some obvious evidence linking User:Stlom to Michael Smith? -- Black Falcon 05:34, 27 March 2007 (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.