Talk:Merrill Keiser

fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

I'm putting the phrase traditional values in quotes, because it's a pejorative, non-neutral POV term. The article in general is almost verbatim copied from portions of the website, with little editorial review. I'm going to help with this review... --Dbackeberg

Creationism, comments on abortion, comments on military deployment

I used the word creationism to describe his views because the word is used on his blog. The abortion quote and military deployment quote both came from the blog. I also added an internal link for strict constructionism.

I changed the reference from "our" forces to US forces;en-Wikipedia is supposed to be for all anglophones.--SuperWikiman 15:35, July 27 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Why not delete this article now? The primary is over and this candidate is no longer active. Since there was no good reason to create this article, I say we should delete it now. 02:48, 19 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.89.251 (talk • contribs)

There already was a proposal to delete (see above), and it occurred AFTER the primary. John Broughton 13:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should be deleted. One argument made was since he was so far to the right, not just of Democrats, but Republicans, we should keep the article. The thing is, token conservative Democrats run in primaries against popular liberals all the time. As for the argument that he got a lot of national attention, that isn't true. There were a few local newspapers that covered him, but nothing other than small-time bloggers nationally.

Since the primary, the candidate has not been active in politics. He wasn't a serious candidate in the first place, so I say that this topic does not merit it's own article. 22 August 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Murphy (talk • contribs)

You or anyone else is free to again initiate the formal process to evaluate whether the article should be deleted. I do note that many editors expect new arguments when a delete proposal is made for a second time, and nothing you've said seems to reach that threshold (to me, at least). For example, that Keiser has not been active in politics for the past month or two is not exactly definitive that something has changed since the July vote. Why not give the article six months or a year to see what happens next, if anything? (And proving a negative - that he hasn't been active - may be difficult.)John Broughton 14:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Time to delete this article

It's uncategorized and pertains to a primary that was over seven months ago. The page is never updated, and this guy is not in the news anymore, in any medium other than his own weblog, which is run by his friends, and does not even discuss his candidacy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.107.214.143 (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I say keep him if for humor value only. I like the hypocrisy in the fact he claims to be prolife yet advocates killing homosexuals. I love the contradiction.

BTW, it seems like it is autobiographical

Merge to United States Senate election in Ohio, 2006

The article as currently written does not seem to pass WP:BLP1E as the comments here and even the AFD debate suggest that he was only notable for the primary.--balloonguy (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Merrill Keiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060421074836/http://www.keiserforussenate.com/ to http://www.keiserforussenate.com/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130220142359/http://www.thenews-messenger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060324/NEWS01/603240315&SearchID=73239574950345 to http://www.thenews-messenger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20060324%2FNEWS01%2F603240315&SearchID=73239574950345

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)