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. — Cirt (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Steele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of TR05401 (talk · contribs), who requested technical help. I have not independently verified any of the claims made here or any of the sources present on the article and submit this AfD in accordance with WP:AGF. I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While Steele did have a campaign of sorts, it was comprised primarily of stunts, such as his arrest, or standing at the roadside awaiting a Vice Presidential motorcade and giving the VP the finger. Whether Biden deserved it or not isn't so much the issue, as was whether Steele was a serious and/or viable candidate. Coverage was minimal, usually a part of a larger story not concerning him, and, as an example, what he got had more to do with his fringe perspective; this Burlington Free Press article mentions his phosphorous pollution abatement plan for the nearly 600 miles of Lake Champlain shoreline - an "industrial hemp barrier" for which he never during the debate or on his website afterward offer any facts or point to any studies in support of his proposal. He was routinely excluded from debates for not meeting minimal criteria for admission and so used those occasions to garner free media by standing at the entrance and complaining until the event started, and then he'd leave. He did not schedule events for voters to meet him since there was no visible support for his candidacy in the state, other than from a very small group (20-30) of likeminded secessionists. The event at which he was arrested was a Democratic primary candidate event for which, naturally, he was ineligible for inclusion since he was running as an independent and was not, as Ketcham's Times's January 31, 2010 article inaccurately reported, running as the "Second Vermont Republic's gubernatorial candidate" (SVR is not a registered political party in Vermont). Further, Ketcham wrote a self-published piece at the HuffPo on August 31, 2010 that was subsequently self-republished again at CounterPunch.org that I've removed from Steele's article since Ketcham revealed in another of his self-published pieces on March 15, 2011, that he'd written the August 2010 piece "as a favor to my friends in the Vermont secessionist movement" and that the piece was intended as "good advertising."

Since the election Steele's absented himself from any of the statewide policy discussions that in a small state like ours most can participate in with little problem. During the March town meeting this year that occurs statewide he made no effort to politically participate, either in his community or in the state at large.

He has never held or run for any other public office here that I can find in the Vermont Secretary of State's website.

There's considerably more but since I didn't see this much detail in the original deletion discussion so I don't want to overdo.--TR05401 (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Minor activist, non-notable. Neutrality^talk 02:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Notification. Still getting up to speed on AfD. Since DennisRFV or Dennis Steele is a blocked user I've left word for him at his Radio Free Vermont website contact page that this discussion of the 2nd nomination for deletion of the Dennis Steele article is underway.--TR05401 (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In January 2010 Time Magazine did devote a couple paragraphs to Steele, including a few quotes from him, in an article here about Vermont Secession, which is more than many BLPs can say. This much better news search shows more than a dozen WP:RS news articles mentioning him, doubtless with more info that could be put in the article. It should be noted that User:TR05401's account - in its initial edits and in yesterday's edits - seems to be devoted almost entirely to working on/deleting this article, i.e., single purpose account. Please note: The Vermont secession movement is plagued by a few people who slander and smear it regularly and I believe some of them have registered (perhaps multiple times) for just that purpose; see for example Second Vermont Republic article which has had a number of such single purpose editors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Steele's was a one time, single purpose candidacy. Since the election he has completely absented himself from Vermont's political scene and has failed to weigh in on many important, statewide issues, such as legislative reapportionment, the ongoing battle to shutdown Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee plant or to pursue what he'd claimed as a primary purpose for his campaign effort, that is, to bring Vermont National Guard troops home. He was quoted in the Time article as saying he would do so but it should be noted that there is no constitutional authority for a Vermont governor to do so. News coverage contained spot references to Steele at most, usually of a disparaging sort, due to what journalists described as the fringe nature of his campaign; here's an example not included above. The suggested much better news search above contains many repeats which are AP reprints from the Globe regional page of Vermont articles and not original work. Please note: The Vermont Secession movement employs people who due Internet work on its behalf, one of whom has an extensive record of negative interactions on Wikipedia that include personal attacks, Internet stalking (including emails) and hate speech that is not the subject of this discussion. --TR05401 (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very little of what TR05401 (talk · contribs) has said is valid rationale for deletion under the deletion policy (full disclosure: in addition to opening this AfD on his behalf, I have responded to his requests for help that are directly related to this AfD). However, Steele does fail WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate who received a whopping 0.80% of the vote ([1]). As for the "more than a dozen" news articles mentioning Steele, I skimmed all of the hits on that GNews search: the majority mention him only in passing in the context of discussing the two major party contenders in that governor's race, some sources do not mention him at all or are about the Vermont secession movement in general and not about Steele, one is about his fashion sense, and the one that is actually about Steele is an op-ed and therefore fails the reliable source criterion. I do not believe that these sources are enough to get him over the basic criteria of WP:BIO. If consensus is to delete, I would not be opposed to recreation as a redirect to Vermont gubernatorial election, 2010. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sensible, non-biased option. Of course, it is frustrating when far less notable bios somehow survive. I have COIs with the two most annoying far less notable ones I'd like to see gone, but haven't been able to get anyone else to nominate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm sorry CarolMooreDC but of the sources you provided, none look like "significant coverage". Only the "Time" one comes close. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 7 July 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.