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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 13:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Joseph (politician) (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)

For the record I created this article, however that was over 10 years ago. Back then I did not understand the need in Wikipedia to include references, and both my understanding and consensus on notability for politicians has changed since then. The current guidelines say that unelected candidates are rarely notable. In the decade the only sourcing shown is in coverage of one of his opponents. Not all candidates for the US house are notable, and Joseph does not seem to overcome this truism. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Foner 1993 and Suggs 1983 both have in-depth entries about him which allow for the article to be NOR, NPOV, and V. Many other sources provide more details. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So John Pack Lambert is saying that this reasonably relevant African-American civil rights activist from the 1800's should be deleted because "unelected candidates are rarely notable" despite having made the effort to write the article and it having stood for 10 years? I am suprised, but considering the diffrence between how the article looked when submitted to AfD and the current version I think it's pretty obvious that Smmurphy deserves some credit here. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you. 19th century African-American history is my specialty on wikipedia, so while I would prefer the article not to have been submitted to AfD, I don't have an opinion on whether Johnpacklambert should have been able to find the sources and improve the article himself and was happy to make a contribution last night (which I was too tired to properly copy-edit, for what its worth). Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Smmurphy's improvements and sourcing. Seems he did quite a bit more, that was covered, than just failing in his election bid. I commend JPL's integrity in nomming an article he himself created, which I agree did not establish notability (in text and in sourcing) prior to Smmurphy's improvements.Icewhiz (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC) missing not fixed.Icewhiz (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per splendid WP:HEYMANN by User:Smmurphy, obviating all concerns expressed by Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While it's true that we don't keep unelected candidates just because they were candidates per se, an unelected candidate can sometimes have preexisting notability for other reasons that would get them kept under other inclusion criteria besides NPOL itself — and Smmurphy has done a very creditable job of substancing and sourcing this into a much stronger and more keepable article than it was even at the time of nomination. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per fine additions satisfying WP:BASIC. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw The article clearly establishes notability. It did not at the time I nominated it, and the fact that so few sources had been identified in the decade plus of the article existing made it seem unlikely it would be. I have to object to the misuse of the english languge in the above discussion. "themself" is not a word, it clearly should be "himself" and I take offense at the abuse of the language in such a wrong-headed way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, no offense was meant. I've switched the pronown. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The next step is to create an article on Jack Turner (politician) who as the subject of a scholarly publication would seem to be clearly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John Pack Lambert I agree, so I started it. It seems there is a fair amount of material. Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the exception proves the rule. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and remove stub tag). While the subject does not meet the criterion of being elected, he appears to have been a significant human rights campaigner and seems notable for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2018 (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.