Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floyd C. Bayne

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd C. Bayne

[edit]
Floyd C. Bayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable candidate that fails WP:BIO. The article's references are not sufficient to establish notability and a search didn't reveal more than passing mentions of Cantor's refusal to debate him. GobonoboT C 02:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gobono this article isn't about Cantor not debating. It is about the very notable Floyd who has dozens of search pages with many secondary source News Papers and Tv stations interviewing him about the race. J. D. Hunt (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with this opinion. Notability exists, as others have pointed out (below). Squ1rr3l (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please. Third party candidate who manages a press writeup or three, but has no chance of election? This is the very thing WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:POLITICIAN were set up to prevent. Give him a sentence or so in the article on the election proper, and get rid of it. RayTalk 16:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ray quit embarasing yourself. You are showing that you are either biased with an agenda to delete this article or you can't read Floyd Bayne has dozens of writeups in many different newspappers and has been on all the District Television stations. 96.228.59.55 (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This candidate is very notable. When you search his name at least 20 search pages on Google from various third party sources come up. He is sited in articles that are from papers all over this district, as well as mentions in major national websites like Redstate.com, and there are even international articles about about Mr. Bayne and his part in the race. J. D. Hunt (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Floyd Bayne has been covered twice by one of the district's most watched televison WTVR CBS News 6 here and here, and featured on the other bigest WWBT NBC News 12 here. WRVA, the Districts top talk/news/political station has had Floyd featured on the Morning Show at least once and the Most listened to Afternoon Show with Doc Thompson Twice; here is one and here is the other one. This is from Mr Bayne's News Blog, but it gives a list of many independent news sources that talk about Floyd Bayne in the Virginia 7th District Race right here. And I am sure he only listed the ones he considered faltering to himself, because there are additional many unflattering ones about him. He was also invited and appeared as a guest to the first annual Virginia Tea Party Convention alongside Lou Dobbs, Ron Paul and many other Tea Party notables. If you guys say this guy isn't notable then you must be working for Cantor. I don't see you wanting to delete Rick Waugh, democrat's Wikipedia page and he is less notable than Floyd Bayne. J. D. Hunt (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
my mistake on Waugh's page the last time I checked there was no attempt to delete Ricks page. J. D. Hunt (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to provide informational sources? To delete a person (Floyd Bayne) who has attained significant media coverage, and who has the attention of thousands of people who Floyd has spoken too and the people who have sought him out researching who he is, in my opinion lessons Wikipedia's purpose. I understand Wikipedia not listing someone like me who has been covered and interviewed by the media many times. But Floyd Bayne could be the next elected Representative of hundreds of thousands of People. Plus there are only 12 more days until the Congressional Election. To delete Floyd Bayne now, put's his opponents with a higher advantage. Deleting Floyd Bayne could also be in violation of Federal Election Laws since Wikipedia could be considered, if it is not already, a news source which I believe would fall into the category of having to follow Federal Election Laws that require equal time and coverage for ALL CANDIDATES. Joe Cacciotti— 98.191.6.57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC).
Who is arguing that Wikipedia is a soapbox or advertising platform for political candidates? We are arguing that he is notable. 96.228.59.55 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that the subject is notable is one thing; the argument that the subject must be granted "equal time and coverage" assumes that Wikipedia is a platform for election candidate biographies. It is not. Location (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This candidate is significant and notable. As a "tea party" type candidate who is challenging the 2nd most powerful Republican representative in the Federal government, Bayne has received a significant amount of coverage, and has drastically altered the political conversations in Virginia. His challenge to Eric Cantor, Republican Whip in the House of Representatives, has forced the incumbent to dramatically alter his plans for the election season, which were initially to promote his book and his party as he easily won re-election in his 70% conservative district. Instead the candidate has been spending resources and time to defend his seat. That means the dialog on the national level has also been changed by this candidate. There is ample and significant press coverage of this candidate to justify his inclusion in this category. Squ1rr3l (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS GARBAGE. ERIC CANTOR IS JUST HAVING HIS OPPONENTS' PROFILES TAKEN DOWN. JUST ANOTHER DIRTY TRICK FROM ERIC CANTOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmonder (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC) — Richmonder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, he was not. He is a candidate of the Independent Green Party and got on the ballot by petition. [1] --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 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) 15:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect is functionally the same as a merge - anybody who wishes to can merge from the article history. Discussions about whether an article should exist on its own tend to come here. And this one clearly doesn't. RayTalk 16:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, imo the person who does the redirect has the moral responsibility to merge the material before doing the redirect, particularly so close to the election date. It's disingenuous to the election date is immaterial in the case of election-related articles. At Wikipedia we Assume Good Faith, and that's part of it. Flatterworld (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Generally a candidate is considered non-notable if the only news coverage s/he gets is about the election, that is, the "horse race". But Bayne has been the subject of at least one in-depth article specifically about him, in the Richmond Times Dispatch, a Reliable Source. That kind of coverage is unusual for a third-party candidate and might push him over the line to notable. All the rest of the "references" cited are to his website, and I couldn't find anything significant at Google News. If J.D. Hunt knows of "many secondary source News Papers and Tv stations interviewing him", now is the time to show us links to those interviews. If the consensus is non-notable, then redirect per usual practice; that will preserve the article's history so it can be recreated if he wins or becomes more notable in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Melanie, the article is entirely in the context of the election. The headline is "Opponent criticizes Cantor's TARP support." For me, this is far below the bar of significant coverage required by GNG if a candidate fails WP:POLITICAN. Your mileage may vary, but I think this is an insignificant fringe candidate who's managed maybe one or two press writeups in a very political year. RayTalk 16:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ray you are wrong this article does not qualify as non-notable 96.228.59.55 (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ray do you know how to use Google? This candidate has gotten more than one write up in more than a dozen papers, as well as a write up in national, frequently sited redstate.com, and international press stemming from him being the only candidate for the Virginia Tea Party Convention with Lou Dobbs and other tea party notables. Dude I am trying to assume good faith, but you are not looking at proof of notability, which is leading me to think you have a dog in this race aka an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.59.55 (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also Ray many have given links to many top TV Stations in the state that have covered Mr. Bayne.96.228.59.55 (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abductive, he isn't a losing candidate the election isn't decided. 96.228.59.55 (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will bet you one miillllion dollarssss. Abductive (reasoning) 01:17, 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.
How was this deleted there were more keep (no deletes) than deletes.This is supposed to be voted on. the ones with the most votes wins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.59.55 (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Floyd_C._Bayne&oldid=1142196658"