Talk:Adam Smith (Kentucky politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

	Kentucky Portal Adam Smith (Kentucky politician) is within the scope of WikiProject Kentucky, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Template Usage] [Watch Project Articles] [Project Talk]
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

[edit] From VfD

Pure campaign literature. --Jpgordon 20:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Chris 20:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Probably a copyvio. Delete. RickK 20:59, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Political speech, probable copyvio. I prefer Vaseline politicians. — Gwalla | Talk 22:27, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • change to weak keep. He doesn't seem all that notable, but the new article is a definite improvement. What happens if the previous article was a copyvio though? — Gwalla | Talk 17:22, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Irreparably POV. [[User:Livajo|力伟|т]] 22:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the new stub. [[User:Livajo|力伟|т]] 12:23, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Guess it wasn't irreparable after all. anthony (see warning) 16:03, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This one is a borderline candidate for speedy deletion. CJCurrie 01:50, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • In light of the recent stub/edit change, I'm changing my vote to keep. The old version was campaign literature; the new version is credible. CJCurrie 22:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Undecided. Are candidates for Congress for major parties automatically encyclopedic like people in other votes have stated candidates for Canadian parliament are? If so, he gets a guernsey. On the other hand, he doesn't have a web site and this article in a local paper suggests he is a 26 year old who lives on his parents farm and has a Pol Sci degree. [1] I doubt if the Democrats campaign committee consider that this guy has much chance of winning the seat. If we do keep it, the article will have to be rewritten as the current article is rhubarb. 165.228.129.11 06:42, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't know Compare to a page like Tristan_Downe-Dewdney (an example of a page for a Canadian parliamentary candidate), which I just updated. Perhaps it makes sense to keep the page until after your election winds up? I wonder if a page like Tristan's should stay on the server (perhaps growing with every election, even if he keeps losing), or shouldn't appear in the first place? Krupo 00:06, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I've rewritten the page; it's now factual and OK, if stubby. Major party candidates for Congress are encyclopedic; now that the page has some content, it should be kept and moved to Adam Smith (Kentucky politician). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 07:03, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Why not create the rewrite there and redirect. Then this can be deleted to remove the copyvio. anthony (see warning) 00:05, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• The current stub is much better but I still have to vote delete. The recommended standard at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies#People still alive is "holding statewide or nationwide elected office". It's just too easy to become a losing candidate even of a major party. There might be exceptions but I don't think this is one of them. Rossami 16:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Even people who win an election are often far from being really notable, just someone to list in an article about who sat in the legislature that year. An article on someone just for being a candidate seems outside notability. And that includes candidates for Canadian parliament if only notable for that reason. Sounds too much like "breaking news story". Jallan 22:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• On reflection, I am voting Keep. He was selected in a primary where thousands of people vote and candidates for Congress even if unsuccessful often go on to have successful political careers. Both Bush and Kerry were once unsuccessful candidaes for Congress. BTW I was the undecided anon from yesterday - I didn't notice that I wasn't logged in. Capitalistroadster 07:46, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I'm split on this one. On the one hand, I want to say Delete because he admittedly has little chance of winning, and outside of this fact, he is non-notable. On the other hand, he is the nominee of a major party for a major position; he's not a Green running for soil and water board. Someone from his district is quite likely to come here seeking information; however, there's really not much information that can be put there apart from his meager funds, external links and a political ad. Due to this split, I'll abstain, I just wanted my thoughts out. --Golbez 22:19, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • • A policy of accepting inclusion of every candidate in every national election world wide could easily turn Wikipedia into an election battleground. It is asking for POV editing. And since some states, provinces, territories and so forth are larger than some countries, what of candidates for election and a state, province, or territorial level? If the candidate later becomes notable as a politician or in some other way, then is the time to create an article on that person. We don't create articles on people who might become notable. People interested in learning about candidates in an election should not expect to find every candidate listed in Wikipedia with a note at the bottom of the article inviting supporters and non-supporters alike to edit the article. There is a reason why the recommended standard at Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies#People still alive is "holding statewide or nationwide elected office". Adam Smith does not qualify under current Wikipedia policy. And there is reason behind that policy. Jallan 14:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Aye, and now that I see that policy (And know that men wiser than I have come up with it), I switch to Delete. --Golbez 15:46, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
        • It isn't a policy, though, and it doesn't say that people not holding office shouldn't have articles, it says that people who do hold office should. anthony (see warning) 16:03, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Anthony DiPerro claims: "It isn't a policy, though, and it doesn't say that people not holding office shouldn't have articles, it says that people who do hold office should." This is misinformation. The page itself is policy and claims to be "Criteria for inclusion of biographies". It does not say that "people who do hold office should" have articles. It says (bolding added by me): "Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia. This list is not all-inclusive. There are numerous biographies on Wikipedia on people who do not fall under any of these categories, and no intention to delete them all." The word is "may", not "should". Two types of people who appear under the listing are "Political figures holding statewide or nationwide elected office" and "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage". There is a large arguable area here. But the claim made that all candidates in federal elections immediately become notable for that reason alone is not supported by current policy. Anthony DiPerro has long disagreed with Wikipedia's policies for VfD, feeling that Wikipedia should be far more inclusive than it is. He has every right to advocate changes in policy. But he should not misrepresent current policy which gives no suport to listing candidates for election who are by other criteria also too unnotable for a biographical entry in Wikipedia. Jallan 19:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
            • You only have to read the first line of the page to see "This proposed policy is considered by some to have the status of semi-policy. It has not yet reached consensus support." As for your should/must quibble, I concede. anthony (see warning) 16:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and list on possible copyright infringements. anthony (see warning) 23:04, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:10, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

[edit] Notable?

I'm from Kentucky, and this guy pretty much came out of nowhere to run for a Congressional seat. And he lost. So how does this make him notable? This probably should be resubmitted for deletion. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 15:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Must say I disagree. The issue of what political candidates to include (losing candidates? Winning candidates for Councils of large cities?) are currently unsettled. I think a better solution would be to start a page similar to Wikipedia:Deletion policy/local politicians, only for losing national legislative candidates--call it Wikipedia:Deletion policy/losing national legislative candidates. There, people can discuss and try to reach consensus. Let me know what action you decide to take, if you don't mind. Best, Meelar (talk) 20:01, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I believe I will first submit for VfD a second time (at some point), and if that fails, look at other options. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 23:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I can't say "good luck" as such, but hope everything turns out well for you. Best, Meelar (talk) 08:24, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

VfD is a valid Wikipedia procedure to weed out unencyclopedic stuff. Nothing wrong with that approach. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 16:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)