Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arik Bjorn

:{{la|Arik Bjorn}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arik_Bjorn Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Arik Bjorn}})

Candidate for national office in the US. Nearly all news coverage is pretty standard political candidate coverage, and per WP:POLOUTCOMES a candidate who ran in a national election but was defeated does not get inherent notability. Wrote some books but doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. His other activities don't appear to qualify him for normal notability standards from WP:BIO. His plans for running for future office fall under WP:FUTURE - he can get an article if he becomes notable then. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

May I make the case that the previous Democratic Party nominee, Rob Miller, has a Wikipedia entry? And Arik Bjorn's candidacy had some notable history connected to it, including the fact that he is only the second candidate in history to be endorsed pre-primary by the SC Democratic Party. Also, he is a rare fusion candidate, and one of the most successful Green Party congressional candidates in history. Also, Mr. Bjorn has a very wide international reading audience: readership in over 185 countries. Please let me know if there is any other information I can provide to make a case for inclusion. Kb32 (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Kb32

:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's certainly possible that Miller might not actually be eligible for an article either, but Miller and Bjorn each have to be evaluated on the merits or demerits of their own articles, and not on "if one has an article then the other one automatically has to have one too". Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Another thought to consider is that Wikipedia provides a Infobox category called "Congressional Candidate," which would seemingly presuppose that certain congressional candidates merit article inclusion. Again, Mr. Bjorn's congressional candidacy has very unique components associated with it--certainly no less of importance than Mr. Miller, a previous candidate to unseat Congressman Wilson. Kb32 (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Kb32

:Some responses. First, on Mr. Miller - that's not an argument for inclusion, see WP:OSE for an explanation (note that isn't policy, it's unofficial, but it's still a good read as to why that argument is a non-starter.) Second, he still needs notability - you can read WP:BIO but being the first X or most successful Y doesn't make you inherently notable; you can read Electoral fusion for much more notable candidates that ran under multiple parties, many successfully elected and thus meeting notability guidelines. He has to meet "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article", and in this editor's opinion the coverage you cited is pretty standard fare on national-level candidates - it doesn't meet the significant bar. Last, WP:AUTHOR states the guidelines for being notable as an author; being read in a large number of countries is not a factor, especially in an era when my edits can be read by almost anyone. If he meets one of the other standards in WP:BIO, add it to the article and note it here. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Bjorn is also the recipient of the Innoventure Przirembel Prize, "which recognizes collaborations across diverse organizations and promotes best practices in open innovation building a greater sense of identity of the Southeastern United States as an innovation powerhouse in the world." One simply cannot state enough the import of the South Carolina SmartState Program in the success of the South Carolina economy, a program which Mr. Bjorn led for nearly a decade. The program was called "the best program of its kind in the U.S., and that which should be the envy of all other states" by a Washington Advisory Group panel that included the formed Director of Technology at Microsoft and the former President of The Ohio State University. Mr. Bjorn was also recognized by former Queensland Premier Dr. Peter Beattie at 2013 BIO in Washington DC for his outstanding work in helping to place South Carolina on the knowledge economy map. Mr. Bjorn has played significant roles in the political, economic development, literary and arts community in South Carolina for nearly a decade. (In addition to all the other things mentioned, he has had major roles in numerous major theatre productions and written extensively at the local level, in addition to his internationally-read pieces.) It is hard to imagine someone with more influence and impact across the broad spectrum of public life in Midlands South Carolina. Please do seriously consider this article for worthy inclusion on Wikipedia. (And if my earlier foibles at article entry have whatsoever negatively impacted the article's chances for inclusion, I truly apologize.) Kb32 (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Kb32

:Response I did a Google News search for [https://www.google.com/search?q=Innoventure+Przirembel+Prize&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Innoventure+Przirembel+Prize&tbm=nws Innoventure Przirembel Prize] and found nothing, so I don't think winning a prize that's non-notable in and of itself would help his case. Being a member of a panel that included notable people also does not make him notable, please see WP:INVALIDBIO. Being active in local theater productions does not make him notable just because of that, see WP:CREATIVE. I mean no offense, but there are numerous people who have a laundry list of things they've done but that does not confer notability; we have guidelines which you are encouraged to read at WP:BIO. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Can one easily identify 10 non-presidential Green Party candidates who received more votes than Mr. Bjorn in an election? I would venture Mr. Bjorn is one of the most successful third party congressional candidates in modern U.S. history--is he not? Kb32 (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Kb32

:Response First, see WP:OSE. Second, the party isn't relevant towards notability; we don't list the top 10 non-presidential Reform/Libertarian/Conservative/etc. party candidates just because they made the top 10 for their particular party, that's not part of notability guidelines for politicians. Third, if you are going to mention successful third party congressional candidates in recent history, Bernie Sanders pretty much towers over all of them in his impact on the US political arena. See Third party officeholders in the United States to find that being an independent isn't all that big a deal. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

:"One of the most successful third party congressional candidates" so long as you exclude the third-party candidates who have won seats and thereby held office, surely? Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and source that he already qualified for an article under some other notability criterion independent of his candidacy (e.g. preexisting notability in another field of endeavour, already having held a different notable political office, etc.), then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get over WP:NPOL. Our role on Wikipedia, when it comes to politics, is to keep and maintain articles about holders of political office, not necessarily every candidate for it — some candidates in some circumstances can be notable for other reasons besides the candidacy itself, but the candidacy itself is not a valid reason for an encyclopedia article. And the number of votes a person did or didn't get in the process of not winning the seat makes no difference, either. But this makes no credible claim that he had any preexisting notability, and the sourcing is nowhere near strong enough to claim that he passes WP:GNG anyway: it's far too dependent on primary sources and blogs, with not nearly enough evidence of reliable source coverage. As noted, Rob Miller (South Carolina politician) may not actually be eligible to keep that article either — but that will have to be determined by evaluating his article for whether he has a credible claim of notability or not, as neither article has any bearing on whether the other article is keepable or not. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Candidates for US congress are not notable for this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.