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 no consensus. Seems like this person is ... interesting enough to warrant substantial editor and reader interest, but may fail our notability standards. There's no clear consensus yet, and perhaps a renomination after the upcoming US elections can settle this.  Sandstein  05:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josue Larose

Josue Larose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete per WP:POLITICIAN -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Seems to not meet WP:POLITICIAN but the many sources suggest that he probably meets WP:BIO for his work other than directly running for office. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Switching to delete There are fewer sources than I thought and most of the sources that do exist seem to not have much information. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As he is a political activist and billionaire; he was recently the central figure of an episode of The Colbert Report (May 3), which ought to give him some media attention/notability, mostly from his massive super pacs that rival Colbert's. RoyalMate1 23:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only notability is as frequent write-in candidate and as founder of dozens or hundreds of SuperPACs, which media sources suggest have not brought in significant money.
  • Keep since this article can provide information hopefully more useful than simply referring to "that one guy from Florida who made all those Super PACs". He does seem like a trivial, possibly eccentric person, but his activities are somewhat noteworthy as a case study at least in the context of discussing topics such as ballot access, Super PAC formation, etc. RCS talk 11:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not actually fail WP:POLITICIAN, as far as I can tell. There are plenty of sources covering him in a basic Google search. And they are all rather in depth, considering the big point about him is that no one can find him. — trlkly 16:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To quote WP:POLITICIAN: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability,". The person is not elected and AfD case law has used the elected/unelected status as a keep/delete test. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This individual isn't "just ... an unelected candidate for political office". He's done some very unusual things that have garnered news coverage. That's hardly the same thing as someone who ran for office once and was never heard from again. RCS talk 10:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A "basic google search" giving a set of results is not a test for whether there should be an article on the topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, but it seems like a reasonable defense against the charge of a lack of sources, which has been mentioned as a reason for deletion. RCS talk 10:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I would say he does fail WP:POLITICIAN. He's never been elected to public office, and he has never been regarded as a serious candidate. That leaves the GNG. He has gained some notoriety for the number of PACs, Super-PACs and political parties he has created, but that is only good for an occasional mention in the news and on the Colbert Report (and sorry, but being mentioned by John Stewart or Stephen Colbert does not establish notability by itself). He has a certain annoyance factor (forcing special elections, overburdening state agencies with paperwork, causing the state legislature to ban one person heading more than one political party at a time), but I don't think that activity has generated the kind of coverage need to establish notability for a Wikipedia article. -- Donald Albury 11:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know about your constituency, but where I live, people as mysterious as this have found their way into elected office more and more recently. Furthermore, long-standing convention that the public should know certain things about those who run for public office is suddenly tossed out with the bath water, only to be replaced with "official websites" and free chili feeds. Next thing you know, this attitude is enshrined in law, under cover of "identity theft" or any other boogeyman lying about. It doesn't help that there are people out there for whom about as much is known, yet have been elected to office. We're talking people who have Wikipedia articles and are deemed notable by virtue of the office they were elected to. Typically, their articles amount to little more than the passably-pseudo-advertisement-what-is-this-shit-level article we're discussing here.
The primary challenger to my U.S. Representative in this year's election is someone who began her political career in the 1960s, just like the incumbent. Since she's trying to portray herself as Mrs. Smith Goes to Washington in this campaign, information on her early political activities isn't exactly easily available. How willing are you to go through microfilm of newspapers from 1972? I found a few relevant details, but ultimately was more concerned about wasting a lot of time, considering that her campaign has gained approximately zero traction.
I'm certainly a lot more open to politicial biographies on Wikipedia than a lot of editors appear to be. However, the direction of a lot of these articles would suggest that we're supposedly all doing this to help the careers of people who recognize their own notability, but otherwise struggle to remain relevant. I watched that bit on The Colbert Report and left with the impression that Larose wasn't a real person, but a character created by Colbert to illustrate that people like this exist in American politics. Of course, I didn't care enough one way or the other to do any searches and find that out.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to say that you did not care enough about Larose to do a search to learn more about him, and yet you left the longest comment on the deletion page for his Wikipedia article. This seems contradictory to me. It also seems unclear why you think this should be deleted. Most of this response is irrelevant and seems more about a general distaste with local politics. 76.20.13.102 (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a very simple reason, I heard about him and came to Wikipedia to see if it had more information. He's notable enough to warrant my search for information on him despite being a New Yorker and not a Floridean where he actually plays a(n apparently negligible) role in the politics. I would say the article ought to be expanded upon.67.87.168.207 (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of the arguments for deletion seem to be that he fails WP:POLITICIAN. However, his notability is not as a politician, but as an organizer of an incredible number of political action committees and parties, and because he is under investigation for a mind-boggling 2000 counts of breaking election laws. Comparing Larose against WP:POLITICIAN is misguided. This article should be removed from the list of politician-related deletion discussions, as it does not fit there. 76.20.13.102 (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom, not notable. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2012 (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.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Josue_Larose
No tags for this post.