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 keep. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Samuels[edit]

User (posting as various IPS) clearly doesn't want a page and has vandalised WP to such. I should note that I filed this afd only after a person claming to be Samuels has made multiple legal threats against Wikipedia (see http://jimmywales.blogspot.com/ for a cite. I suppose one could say my objectivity is biased by the fact that I am accused in the above vandalism posts, so I will not be voting either way in this AfD. Tawker 07:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep national party leaders with media coverage and references. Most of the work seems to have been done by User:CJCurrie, a fine Wikipedian. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. It's not a registered political party [1], so how would this be any different from you calling yourself the "Caesar Party of Canada" and rating a Wikipedia entry as a national party leader? The registration requirements are hardly onerous [2], there's a registered Marijuana Party of Canada among others. Notability would depend on whether he's rated any mention in the media (a passing mention in a Time magazine article and various newspaper stories is cited, which may be significant). Regarding complaints about having a Wikipedia article, it would seem that if a person is a self-described "national political party leader" then he imagines himself to be a public figure, and public figures usually come in for public scrutiny, for better or worse. The Cosmopolitan Party of Canada could certainly also be nominated for AfD. -- Curps 08:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll admit I haven't heard of the party before, but as I said there's references- you note Time Magazine, the article also gives the Toronto Star and Ottawa Citizen. The Marijuana Party is, by the way, a well-known party, or at least it is as much as it can be without being among the four that get into Parliament. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• While this is a well-written and referenced article, I doubt that he meets WP:BIO. He is the head of an unregistered party and he seems to barely get 100 votes in his constituency. Delete.Capitalistroadster 09:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong keep He's run for election three times, written a bunch of books, created a bunch of websites and founded an unregistered political party. While each of those things on its own may or may not be sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, together they certainly are. Is Wikipedia diminshed by including this material? It isn't. Not one bit. Is it diminished by deleting it? Yes, it is. Firstly, there are people, like me an CJCurrie, who are interested in the characters who populate the firnges of the political scene. Wikipedia is exactly the right place for this sort of information because Wikipedia is not paper. Secondly, wha sort of message do we send out by deleting a lengthy article largely written by a fine Wikipedian like CJCurrie just because a few people think that the subejct isn't "notable" enough. Ground Zero | t 13:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep . I like Ground Zero's summary, it pretty much sums up my thoughts on it. What's really good about the Wikipedia article is that it gathers so many sources into one article. This man has run in pretty much every election happening federally or provincially since around 1992 or so, and if he's now leader of a federal political party, which does occasionally get radio coverage (he's been interviewed), print media mentions, and has been endorsed by two federal politicans (see endorsement page on his site), it warrants an article. The fact that he's going on a rampage to complain about it in this case reinforces the need to keep it (if it wasn't so well sourced that would be another matter), not the need to delete it. Technicalglitch 14:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

added- I think he meets the criteria for "notable", even if he isn't "famous" or "important". Technicalglitch 14:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable, interesting, vandalism is irritating but not sufficient reason for deletion. (If the nominator is abstaining, then this AfD doesn't have a single delete vote so far.) (no longer true) --Malthusian (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the latest addition of rambling spew, I really think we should keep the article. Ground Zero | t 16:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but clean up the cruft. We really don't need to know who this guy sued or got sued by, we don't need a five-page list of every book he's ever non-notably self-published and we don't need to know the minute details of his party. FCYTravis 18:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. CJCurrie 21:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to draw the attention of readers to this page. CJCurrie 04:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC) And this. CJCurrie 04:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A further comment on notability: I do not believe that one can (i) advertise oneself as the leader of a national political party, (ii) register over 65 ISBN titles and extensively advertise one's books, (iii) campaign for public office three times and (iv) [apparently] oversee a quasi-religious movement, and then (v) claim not to be a public figure. Raymond Samuels is hardly the most notable person in the country, but his "publicity" is ultimately of his own design. CJCurrie 20:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As with Daniel Brandt, his activities on Wikipedia makes him notable. Where ^(talk) 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Running for election makes one a public figure of sorts, making his legal threats totally ludicrous. Some of the gossipy stuff in the article might be trimmed, however. *Dan T.* 19:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The sort of under the radar yet ultimately entirely notable topic a non-paper collaborative encyclopedia was made for. Samaritan 04:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dan T. I don't like legal threats. Stifle 11:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per User:Where and User:Ground Zero, figure is notable as per WP:BIO. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article, Block user for NLT. Ground Zero said it clearest.  ALKIVAR™ 22:37, 2 March 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.