User:Balloonman/CSD Survey/3.7
| Quicklinks |
|---|
| Other Excellent articles on CSD |
Original Article
[edit]"Ryan D. Rhodes"
Ryan D. Rhodes Born June 13, 1982 (1982-06-13) (age 26) Milwaukee, Wisconson, United States Nationality American Nickname(s) None Ryan Rhodes (born June 13, 1982) is a American Politician from Ames, Iowa. On June 3, 2008, Rhodes secured nomination during primary unopposed He was defeated in the general election November 4, 2008 . His opponent was Rep. Wessel-Kroeschel now entering her 3rd term as state representative.
Nomination Criteria
[edit]A1
No context. Very short articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Example: "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh." Context is different from content, treated in A3, below.
Deletion Options
[edit]| rationale | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Agree with ratioinale to speedy delete. | 2 | 3.4 |
| Disagree with rationale to speedy delete. The subject of the article is clear, but deletable by other criteria. | 11 | 18.6 |
| Disagree with rationale to speedy delete, but this is a case where IAR applies. | 0 | 0 |
| Disagree with speedy deletion (should be PRODDED, sent to AFD, or kept.) | 46 | 78.0 |
Survey Comments
[edit]| Common rationale | Count |
|---|---|
| A7 | 3 |
| AFD | 1 |
- A7 - a failed politician isn't notable
- A1 is wrong here. A7 can't apply because of the notability assertion. PROD
- A1 is wrong, makes enough claim of notability to pass A7 bio. Send to AfD.
- what is notability on losing candidates?
- could be borderline A7, but I'd probably AfD
- Textbook A7, no notability asserted, lost an election, so what? (I realise I might be alone on this one)
- blatant error. AfD. Deletion of these articles is often disputed.
- A7. Fails WP:Politician and has no other claim to fame.
- A7, a losing candidacy for a state office is not a claim to notability.
- Has context. Wouldn't A7 as possibly notable. Prod rather than AfD as little sources can be found on Google.
- weak assertion of importance
Balloonman's analysis
[edit]A1 is clearly wrong as the context of the article is clearly visible.
A7 is also wrong as A7 only applies to an article that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. To avoid the fate of CSD, the article only has to make a claim to importance/significance, it does not have to prove notability. Send the article to AfD where it will be deleted or where somebody will add to it.
Just because the article fails to meet wp:POLITICIAN does not mean that the person won't meet wp:BIO on his/her own right.
The policy is explicitly written that A7 has a lower threshold than WP:N, thus people who delete this "because it will get deleted at AFD" are putting themselves above community consensus. The policy was written explicitly to ensure that articles like this are given a chance at AfD. It gives the author a chance to defend their work and to prove the individuals notability. Speedy Deleting this article may chase off potentially solid editors.