Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clay Oliver Hill (0th nomination)

Clay Oliver Hill was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

The supposed 2004 US presidential candidate of the "Populist Democratic Viking Party". No evidence of notability. --Sesel 02:43, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• delete --fvw* 03:25, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
• Delete: Joke. Geogre 04:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Arr. Delete. --Slowking Man 08:38, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable joke candidate. — Gwalla | Talk 03:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  Must ... resist ... obvious ... Dubya ... gag ... -- GWO

• Please. Stop. This is an actual presidential candiate. Your judgement that it is a joke is just that - your opinion. He made the ballot, and as such, people may seek information about him. Keep. Intrigue 04:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Where did he make the ballot? Because I went through the balloted candidates for every state before election day and did not see "Clay Oliver Hill" or the "Populist Democratic Viking Party." Being included on Project Vote Smart does not signify ballot access. --Sesel 13:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • It does signify being a real presidential candidate though, doesn't it? anthony 警告 20:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep! I was searching for this on the reference desk, and eventually found it, only to find that someone is trying to delete the information I was looking for! Mark Richards 01:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep The Recycling Troll 03:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: joke, promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. As the person who wrote the article, I can assure you it is neither a joke nor a promotion. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 06:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment: the "Populist Democratic Viking Party" results in eight Google hits, all of which are outdated lists of political parties. Shall we include every candidate on Vote-Smart? Then there should be an article for "HRM Caesar St Augustine De Buonaparte Emperor" of "The Good Party", Jackson Kirk Grimes of the "United Fascist Union." Furthermore, issue positions of this candidate on the NPAT include:

• On abortion: "the root of the problem, the Illuminitti, a.k.a. mob, mafia, CFR"
• On budgets: "the A.K.A. Illuminatti UR "Fed" Reserve, IRS avoid it"
• On crime: "The Illuminati - is the Source the Rest is the systoms -"

The word "Illuminati" is used in every comment field, and none of the questions are actually answered. If this kind of gibberish is allowed on Wikipedia, I will declare myself Pope of Lesotho, rant about the nefarious Surinamese trade unionists, Maldivian dissidents, and Nepalese fishermen who are about to invade "my country", and write an article about myself. --Sesel 04:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• As noted in the article, "he has shown unusual disdain for the National Political Awareness Test". He has written more serious answers in other places, but they're fairly dull. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 07:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Real candidate, registered with the FEC, on the 1998 Qualified Candidates in Florida list for congressional district 8. Mentioned in several articles about third parties in the US... --User:Key45 23:10, 18 Nov 2004
  • The above comment should not be counted, because it is unsigned. --Sesel 05:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I officially claim the above comment (see history for proof), and thank Eequor for signing it for me. I still say 'keep' - Key45 19:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wifki 13:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep this, and other candidates for election to perhaps the world's most powerful position. It's not for us to judge which candidates are serious or not. Trollminator 13:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppet. --Sesel 19:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who do you believe this is a sockpuppet of? Do you have any evidence for this accusation? anthony 警告 20:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to question my credibility? --Sesel 20:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith. anthony 警告 20:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your accusations. Yes, I doubt your credibility, do you have any evidence to doubt mine? Trollminator 21:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User has been editing for over a month. I see no reason not to accept this vote. anthony警告 20:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only plausible explanations for how you might know Trollminator's intentions are:

1. you two know each other, in which case you're obviously in collusion to produce a flame war on VfD
2. you and Trollminator are actually the same person, and either of these accounts might be a sock puppet

Either of these would probably be abuse of VfD, so we ought to consider this whole vote invalid. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 21:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you calling me a sockpuppet? I have over 2,500 edits combined with my old username (TwinsFan48), and I have no connection to "Trollminator." I wouldn't engage in these disputes unless I thought they were important. Keeping vanity presidential candidates off of the project is something I consider important. I have never directly communicated with another known Wikipedia user, and I maintain no alternate accounts. --Sesel 22:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See how it feels. Now stop the unfounded personal attacks. anthony 警告 01:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have given the facts regarding my use of Wikipedia, unlike some people. See my user page for all of my IP addresses if you are truly that concerned. --Sesel 02:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about anything about your unfounded accusations. Show evidence that this user is a sockpuppet, or drop it. anthony 警告 03:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He was a presidential candidate. Eequor is grubbing around to try to find some reason for your bizarre behavior in wanting to delete factual information that people are clearly interested in reading. You have already admitted to having more than one user account, so the acusation that you are my sock puppet is not an inherently unreasonable one given your behavior. Trollminator 23:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not use my other account, and I would never think of using it to start flame wars. I again affirm that I have no control over User:Trollminator, and never will. --Sesel 02:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm convinced. Can you verify your IP address? Mark Richards 03:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Presidential candidate. anthony 警告 16:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Apparently, per recent Reference Desk exchange, real 2000 presidential candidate, on the ballot in Florida. If so, keep: I would say that anyone who legitimately got on the presidential ballot in any state merits an entry, because someone in the future could be doing research and would have reason to look up the name. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:29, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Agree. "Vanity presidential candidates" are not the same as Vanity personal web pages. The latter don't belong here, but the former are candidates for the President of the US. Wikipedia should report that fact, regardless of the candidate's reason for running. --Key45 01:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Other crackpot presidential candidates get their articles. —[[User:MikeX|MikeX (Talk)]] 06:54, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. It should eventually include information on any candidate. Paranoid 17:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Even though this election is an obscure event that is of little interest or relevance to the rest of the world, the article is factual and useful. GeorgeStepanek 20:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.