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 keep. I was tempted to relist this but there's a consensus that, win or lose, the subject meets WP:GNG. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Raby[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an article for a person who is a candidate for office but otherwise lacks notability. WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3 addresses this point specifically, that just being a nominee does not automatically confer notability. This article also fails the general notability guidelines, as the coverage is either a) name-drops within an article about their more well-known, notable opponent b) simple voting/registry directory of who is running for this seat, or c) on the local level only, with no national interest. Per the further explanation at WP:POLITICIAN on what to do with failures, a merger to the appropriate district page is a viable option to deletion. Tarc (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. He is the nominee of a major party for a national election, elected in the primary election. He's notable. Flatterworld (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO, Bad faith nom. Tarc has been involved in an ongoing dispute with another editor who started an ANI debate related to politicians who are running for office and the election is a week away. That editor left Tarc a snarky comment notifying Tarc of the ANI discussion. Tarc response is to open this AFD with a comment at ANI saying, so off we go with a few trial balloons. In 8 days we will have a better understanding as to whether or not these candidates win or lose and thus deserve an article or not. Anybody who casts an !vote now, which is supposed to give guidance to a closing administrator, is doing so via a crystal ball. It doesn't matter if they meet Politician today, what matters is will they when this is closed? Thus, in light of the ANI discussion, I consider this (and all other nominations made by Tarc on the subject to be POINTY.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go into some detail, he may not meet POLITICIAN, but how about GNG:

No trivial coverage in the Huntville Times [1][2][3] (The first story was later picked up and carried by US News and World Reports [4]

WHNT TV [5] has significant coverage of Raby.

Times Daily has significant coverage of Raby. [6]

Tuscaloosanews has more than passing coverage on Raby (and if this is the even I think it was, it was covered in CardPlayer Magazine.com and numerous poker magazines as well. )

Decatur Daily has more coverage on the Lucky Palace piece.

CBS WSFA tv ABC TV WAAT TV and many other TV stations covered Palace/Raby.

Even CNBC [North Ala. PACs in bribery case once run by Raby MSNBC] Bloombergpicked up the AP story: "North Ala. PACs in bribery case once run by Raby"

An LA Times article which is an interesting read and unrelated to everything else above from 1994!

There recently was a political scandal of politicians in Alabama. Do a quick search on "Steve Raby Lucky Palace" and you'll see some of the story. The long and short of it is that several Alabama Politicians (a quick view and I don't think he was one) were recently indited for corruption related to a casino deal. TMCnet, which I don't know how reliable, appears to have an in depth somewhat objective reporting of the incident here. Apparently Raby ran 4 PACs until shortly before they were given money from a casino seeking to expand gambling in Alabama. There are questions about where that money went and and the role Raby did or did not have. Raby got tons of coverage from this incident and like I said, I heard about this incident separate from Raby.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - A major candidate in a notable election for a federal office. This meets WP:POLITICIAN. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, please do not claim that a notability guideline says something that it actually does not. WP:POLITICIAN explicitly states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". Tarc (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You omitted the remainder of that sentence, which reads "although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'" This person has certainly received such coverage. - Dravecky (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was addressing this user's specific deception regarding the politician guideline. The part you cite is what to do if the subject does not meet the guideline; it is not a part of the guideline itself. Tarc (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, it is part of the guideline. DC T•C 12:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The Golden Rule doesn't stop at "Do unto others" just because that "as you would have them do unto you" bit doesn't mesh with your goals. - Dravecky (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no it isn't a part of a guideline, it is a pointer/reminder that general notability can still cover a politician who does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With elections upcoming it is a real bad time to nominate individual politicians for deletion. Wholly inconsistent with the spirit of our BLP policy. Unless they are unequivically unnotable (not this person), these afd's should be speedily closed per our BLP policy.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Alabama, 2010#District 5 per precedent in similar articles (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Weber, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rami Bader (politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naheed Nenshi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Coyle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Kelly (Pennsylvania), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Johnston, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Marie Buerkle (Politician)). I interpret routine election coverage to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Also, the coverage about the candidate is in the context of the election, so (per WP:BLP1E) redirect to the election article. Location (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares? The tag will now stay until the election; I'll cast my !vote then. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has plenty of sources, meets GNG. NOTNEWS does not apply to notable persons in such circumstances. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the articles mentioned above are sufficient to pass GNG. DC T•C 11:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources clearly indicate notability under the GNG. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: (criterion 2.5) rationale clearly indicates that the nominator has failed to make any attempt to check for sources, since a very brief perusal of the links in the header here shows numerous reliable, third-party sources in newspaper articles. An identical rationale has been used for multiple other AfDs, and such a rationale very clearly does not apply here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I am able to read, thanks. That reading includes what was in the refs section of this article, and as noted, I discount coverage that is local and routine in an election cycle. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that is why this is yet another bad faith nom.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the SLIGHTEST comprehension of what "bad faith" actually means? It means if in reality I nominated these things for reasons other than what I stated or somehow misrepresented myself, e.g. I work for the person's opponent, the nomination is based on deliberate falsehoods, and so on. All of the articles I have nominated I have done so because I believe they fail the politician (person is only a nominee) guidelines, and fail the general notability (sourcing is local/routine, primary sources, or to generic data sites). If you disagree with either or both, fine, that's what a goddamned discussion is for here. But this BS by you WILL stop, one way or the other. Tarc (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT. This request is taking the wrong path. The proper path is to use the Template:Merge to and Template:Merge from templates, invite all those involved in both articles, and discuss the issue until consensus is reached. There's no need for a rush to judgement in any of these cases. (Note: One person requesting a Merge is not a consensus, see Ed Potosnak example.)That's why these Merge Templates exist, and that's why they're (normally) used when the issue involves (but not necessarily limited to) a claim that a person is notable only for one event. If consensus is reached, then an actual merge of material rather than a simple delete, or even a delete and redirect, is done. See Scott Harper for an example of this. See Ann Marie Buerkle for an example of the opposite, showing no history at all of what was in the previous article. That article was actually deleted, then a redirect was added after the fact. That's why it's wrong to do deletes in these cases, and that's been the consensus achieved in many, many AfD requests for various political candidates over the years. An example of a non-merge redirect is Lisa Johnston (AfD consensus here). That's simply wrong, as a nominee notable even for an event still has notable information - it's just a question of where it belongs. There is no evidence of any actual merge of material in her case, which makes the election article shockingly unbalanced (aka Undue Weight). There seems to be a lot of confusion on the definition of 'merge' in these discussions. It is not a synonym for a redirect. There are two steps, and both must be taken. Or, the article should be allowed to continue to exist, with 'improvement tags' added as needed. Flatterworld (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least temporarily. per Flatterworld and Bds69. Man, what a waste of time and effort. There is merely ONE editor, Tarc, that wants to flat out destroy the work of many editors 7 days before Election Day. The information is going to be destroyed for no good reason other than Tarc wants to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. As to this particular article, just wait one week and then after Election Day there will be time to decide which articles are to be deleted and which ones will be merged. There is no harm to Wikipedia in waiting, but there is huge potential harm to Wikipedia in destroying editor's work prematurely. It makes Wikipedia look like a partisan free for all. Also, complete deletion is absolutely wrong. There are less destructive ways to handle these articles.--InaMaka (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information is not destroyed if redirected; all editing history is preserved under the redirect. Less appeal to emotion, more commentary on the merits of notability pls. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The merits of fairness are very, very clear. There is just 7 days until Election Day. We can debate ALL of these articles (both Dem and Rep) after the election. Me thinks you are way too focused on disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point and to destroy the work of editors. You have shown no harm in waiting, but there is plenty of evidence that premature destruction will harm Wikipedia in many, many ways. Remember the burden is on you to explain why the deletion assists Wikipedia in its mission. The burden is not on the editors that are pointing toward fairness. Also, don't tell me what I should talk about and what I shouldn't talk about. I not appealing to emotion. I'm asking for common sense to be applied to these articles and we just wait until Election Day. It is only 7 days. What is the big yank, anyway? Why do we have to destroy all of this work immediately? I don't see why you have this hurry up and destroy attitude. Most of these articles have been posted on Wikipedia for months now, what does a few more days hurt? Once again the burden is on you to explain that.--InaMaka (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the burden is on me, to explain why this person fails the notability guidelines. But when you begin to dive into bizarre claims of fairness and "its close to election day", it begins to sound like you're here less to build an encyclopedia, and more to set these up as a stop on the voter information trail. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The rule does not state "that mere candidates are not qualified unless there is an election coming." If you believe that there is a time that is appropriate for deletion for notability or not please tell me when timeframe is and please tell on what Wikipedia rule you base your timeframe. Is the rule based upon when you, Arbor, want notability to apply (a fairly whimsical standard)? or it is 10 days before an election? 20 days? 30 days? 40 days? 100 days? 250 days? one year? What is the timeframe you, one mere Wikipedian draw this mythical line? Should we re-write the Wikipedia policy on political biographies of notability to include a proviso that requires other editors to come to you and ask you, "Is it time now, Arbor?" Each and every argument that you bring up in not based in actual Wikipedia rules. This suggestion that there is some kind of "time out" for the election is your personal brainstorm--novel as it may seem--should be discussed in the proper forum and this discussion area is not it." --InaMaka on 9/24 [7] (emphasis mine) Arbor832466 (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arbor: Your point is? I remember that you argued that Wikipedia should keep Stephene Moore even though Moore is one of the most unqualified candidates ever. Her only claim to fame is that she is the current Congressman's wife. She is uniquely unqualified, but you wanted to keep her and you got your way. Now, of course, on November 3rd, after she gets beat like an old mule on Election Day the article about her in Wikipedia will be gone. She does not qualify for her own article.--InaMaka (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Location, in line with WP:POLITICIAN. This is a longstanding consensus, and on the merits of the article applies indisputably in this case. No notability exists, or is even likely (the seat is rated safe for his opponent), and furthermore the article itself is a thinly veiled campaign bio, arguably suitable for G11. That the nominator has had serious disagreements on this topic with some of the above commentators does not make this nomination out of process, since it is, IMO, indisputably correct on the article's merits. Ray^Talk 05:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, for clarities sake, the criticism of Tarc stems not from his nominating the articles, but rather the manner in which he did so WHILE an ANI discussion was ongoing on the subject. (Notice that at least one other person has nominated similar articles, but nobody challenged that persons noms as POINTY.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Snow Keep. This person has been the subject of significant press coverage including the Huntsville Times and WHNT television in Huntsville. I would ask that you review WP:Politician and note that the coverage is independent of the subject of the article, i.e. the candidate. A quick look at the bottom of the article under references shows the article reaches notability and should never have been brought here in the first place.JodyB_talk 13:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beginning to sound like a broken record here. In nominating these, I discount local, routine election coverage. If the only thing the person has ever done in their life is this current run for office...i.e. not a mayor, state congress, etc...then they do not in my opinino deserve a wikipedia article. So please, knock off the "speedy" caterwauling. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, speedy keep doesn't work here (ignoring the fact that it's been a few days), and that point has been discussed at length elsewhere. But please, Tarc, Caterwauling? Let's tone it down a little, shall we? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you get the same accusationsd of bad faith, over and over...a charge that was quite definitively rejected at An/I, it begins to get frustrating to still see it lobbed about. I make no apologies for word choice. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, I will strike the speedy and replace it with snow because it's obvious this is going to fail. JodyB_talk 20:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really Tarc, my argument was perfectly in line with WP:Politician. I know you may be facing a massive loss here on all these you submitted but caterwauling??? JodyB_talk 14:16, 27 October 2010 (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.