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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Straw[edit]

Andrew Straw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately sourced, promoyionally written campaign biography for a would-be Congressional candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and the GNG. Advertising space may be purchased elsewhere Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "advertising space" when it comes to someone seeking public office is nonsense. You'll have to delete them all if using a criterion like that. The Wikipedia:Deletion_policy does not mention "advertising" as a reason for deletion of political articles. It is clearly not spam. Please review the policy and choose which one you are basing this deletion on. I cannot see any that fit, and therefore I am changing to Keep.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)— 24.7.248.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate and no other claim of notability is made outside of his political activism. Cullen328 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two of you have mentioned WP:POLITICIAN. The primary notability criterion is cited there as being, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." His exploratory committee announcement was covered in two of the three largest newspapers in the district, as mentioned in the article. The article in the Goshen News was on the front page of the paper. That's not a random or insignificant mention, and indicates notability. It was covered in the Elkhart Truth and Goshen News (newspapers), WNDU-TV, and WFRN.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Does not fail because he has indicated (as noted in the newspaper articles cited) that he will make his announcement after the sitting Democratic representative, Joe Donnelly, announces his U.S. Senate bid, if he does so. Would suggest that this article remain until that happens, which Donnelly said last week would be "a couple of weeks." It would be poor Wikipedia form to delete this and then have to reinstate it. If the article needs some cleaning up in the meanwhile, well do some research and do so.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that he has already been elected to regional office in the New Zealand Green Party. It would also be worth noting that Christie_Vilsack also formed an exploratory committee and has apparently never run for office before. Compare the notability of her being the wife of a politician with the things the subject of this deletion debate has done. Neither have held office in the United States except for Straw's precinct election and 2010 delegate selection for state convention. Either both need to be deleted or neither. They are both currently "testing the waters."--24.7.248.248 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 17:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comparing this article to the one on Christie Vilsack is a perfect example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is a classic example of arguments to avoid in deletion debates. We don't keep one poor article because other poor articles may exist on Wikipedia. Instead, we go on to find those other poor articles about non-notable topics and delete them also as needed. If that particular article on Christie Vilsack doesn't meet our standards, nominate it for deletion and we will discuss its merits then. As for the claim that the subject of this article is notable because various newspapers have covered his possible candidacy, that argument goes against well-established consensus. Countless candidates get press coverage, but they are not considered notable by Wikipedia standards unless and until they are elected to high office, or if they are notable for reasons unrelated to their political candidacies. These unelected candidates can be covered in articles about the specific political race, where all candidates for that particular office are given due weight. Cullen328 (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The IP editor commenting so extensively above is functioning as a single purpose account whose edits are so far devoted to Andrew Straw's biography. Given that the IP address is located in or near South Bend, Indiana, I hereby request that the IP editor disclose whether or not the editor has a conflict of interest in this matter. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're going to find that many of the people interested in this are from St. Joe and Elkhart Counties. There is a connection with you and the Sierra Club. Point?--You have already stated you want to delete. I am making edits to the original article, which I did not start, to show notability. If you want to revert the edits and remove references to make it less referenced (and notable) to justify your Delete... It is always easier to just say delete rather than engaging with the article and helping it along, which is what I am doing. I am enjoying this, and intend to follow it. This will be 1/2 of one of the few open seats next year, if Rep. Donnelly moves on to Senate.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note- 24.7.248.248, you appear to have !voted twice; I have struck the upper vote. I have 'commented out' the bipolar text in the article; while he may be, and may be open about it, it is considered defamatory unless sourced (and a violation of WP:BLP); please do not restore it without citation. Dru of Id (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Straw was published in the Goshen News several months ago stating he is bipolar in an article on the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. He also lists it on his committee's Facebook page. Makes sense that we have that info here.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird. I thought for sure I saw it on his page before. It's gone.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it wasn't in the Goshen News. It was in the Elkhart Truth, a larger paper.^[1] In fact he is not listed there as being bipolar. My bad. There are lots of sites that mention him having it, though, as a Google of Andrew Straw and bipolar shows. I'll leave it commented out.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see how I did that here; some of the search results are Dr. Andrew Straw at CalTech's Dickinson lab doing research with fruitflies for the U.S. Air Force. Anyone unfamiliar with the candidate would not be able to identify him in images or video, and Facebook and Youtube are not reliable sources; the telemerase.org site is not independent, and while it works on bipolar issues and thus is included in the search results, I was unable to find anywhere it mentions him as bipolar. Dru of Id (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. Sorry about that.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have a question about this. Are all candidates not notable the first time they run? Do they only become notable once the mud starts flying? This is the reason I mentioned Vilsack. There has to be a standard. If you can show me a Wikipedia standard saying this sort of political article, with lots of references (I provided many) but of an exploratory committee, is not notable and worthy of deletion, I will honestly consider what you are saying and say delete too. If he does become a candidate in a couple of weeks for a U.S. House race, can we reinstate this article or does a new one have to be created? WP:POLITICIANS contains the standard, right? Should I be looking for something else, because as I said above, there doesn't even seem to be justification for a debate on it using the list there?--24.7.248.248 (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Our general practice regarding all candidates who have not yet been elected is to describe them in an article about the specific campaign. In such an article, all candidates for that office are described, not just one candidate. If such an article is created for this particular race, then a redirect from Andrew Straw's name to that article would be appropriate. Such an article should present a balanced, neutral overview of the entire campaign. Newspaper articles triggered by press releases from a candidate or potential candidate are not considered independent, in-depth coverage that would establish notability. If a person is notable for other accomplishments, such as Ross Perot or Donald Trump, of course they will have an article. As for my disclosed membership in the Sierra Club, I am not sure that has any relevance to this discussion, except that I am open about disclosing any potential conflicts of interest. I am an experienced editor working on a wide range of articles, as shown on my user page. I have made exactly the same recommendation in the case of many other candidate's articles, without any regard to the political positions of the specific candidates. My editing record is clear. I again ask the IP editor to disclose any conflicts of interest. Are you a supporter of the Andrew Straw campaign? This is relevant information. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this should be merged with an article about that campaign, if that's the standard everyone uses on Wikipedia about political pages. It seemed to me, again from Vilsack, that what you are saying is not the standard at all. My questions to you stand. Should the Vilsack article also be deleted? We ave having a discussion here, so please answer that. If you say the Vilsack article should remain but can find nothing substantive to distinguish it from this one, maybe you should reconsider your vote. Please stick to my argument, because I am not going to respond to the WP:baiting about my location.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dear IP editor, based on the information I've seen so far about Christie Vilsack, I would recommend deleting that article as well, if that article was the subject of this debate. If it can be shown that she has true notability as a literacy advocate, I might reconsider, but the article would need to be extensively rewritten. However, that article has not been nominated for deletion, but this one on Andrew Straw has. This debate is about the Straw article, not about the Vilsack article. My questions to you about any potential conflict of interest are not baiting, because I have absolutely no wish to provoke an inappropriate reaction from you. I also have no intention of reporting you to an administrator, and to date, have never reported any editor because I do not seek out conflict here. I disclose my conflicts of interest per Wikipedia policy, and expect other editors to do so as well. So, my question to you about conflict of interest stands unanswered. That you decline to answer is, in a sense, a sort of answer. By the way, please feel free to notify me on my talk page if the Vilsack article is nominated for deletion, and I will be glad to chime in there. By personal preference, I choose not to nominate articles for deletion myself. My philosophical inclination is inclusionism, although I recognize that many articles must be deleted to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia. I participate in debates about deletion nominations made by others, and recommend keeping and deleting about equally, based on the merits of each case. An uninvolved administrator will make the final decision here, and I am comfortable with what I have said during this debate. I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Your undies are purple, aren't they?" You mean you don't want to discuss your undies? Then they MUST be purple. I edit with an IP because I don't care to talk about any affiliations I have. What if I am a local politician or someone who could get in trouble editing these things? If I don't respond to your baiting, leave it alone, ok? Regarding Vilsack, I happen to think you are wrong. I'm glad you found it within you to evaluate that article as a similar case, but I don't think you came to the right conclusion. Her article and this one are notable. Both testing the waters for a run for Congress, and because this race may well be an open seat, this one is probably more interesting. I also want to know if Jackie Walorski's page will be deleted or forwarded. Differentiation?--24.7.248.248 (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Walorski is notable under WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of the Indiana state legislature and notability is not temporary. You would actually enjoy a higher level of anonymity when editing as a registered user rather than as an IP, because lots of information is available online about IP addresses. Disclosing a conflict of interest is expected of all Wikipedia editors, IP or registered. It is not necessary to disclose any personal identifying information in order to disclose a conflict of interest. I don't care at all about your real world identity. I do care if you are an active supporter of Andrew Straw. Disclosing underwear color is never expected. Coincidentally, that is a straw man argument. Cullen328 (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, straw man argument. Andrew Straw. But it isn't a straw man argument because it does not set up something to be knocked down as a distraction. In fact, the insistence that I am a supporter of Straw because I will not answer your question contains a logical fallacy, and I will leave it to you to name it.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The straw man is the comparison between asking about potential COI, which is common on Wikipedia, and asking about underwear color, which is absurd and irrelevant. I never insisted you have a COI, I simply asked if you did, and pointed out that declining to answer was an answer in itself. It shows that you are unwilling to comply with an expectation we have of Wikipedia editors, but does not prove that you have a conflict of interest. Cullen328 (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe this article should be kept because this man will soon announce his campaign once Joe Donnelly announces his campaign. Straw's exploratory committee has been announced and picked up through media sources. Many voters come to Wikipedia to learn about candidates. This page was made, I would assume, to let voters know who Mr. Straw is when he announced his committee and when he announces his candidacy for office. If Mr. Straw announces his campaign in a week, would this article be allowed to stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.141.181.3 (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Straw announced via email that Jackie Walorski's campaign is following his exploratory page. Apparently she takes it seriously enough to do so, and that is evidence of notability too.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigns routinely follow the planning of potential opponents. This does nothing to establish notability by Wikipedia standards. Cullen328 (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Sourcing in article only covers subject trivially, in the context of local news coverage. Usual Gsearches less useful because of extreme commonality of the name. Coming as late as I do to this discussion, I assume that previous editors have made a more diligent search, and what shows up in the article is what there is in the way of sourcing, which is insufficient for wiki-notability. Ray^Talk 19:52, 29 April 2011 (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.