Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Wilcock

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. Pigman☿ 17:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Wilcock

Article is about a candidate for the election; she has never held any elected office and belongs to a minor political party. News coverage is limited to lists of who is running in the election, or on Green Party-affiliated websites. I don't think this passes WP:BIO. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's a pretty decent consensus that candidates for office aren't notable unless they get elected or are Screaming Lord Sutch. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The Green Party of Canada is a national party that trends 12-14% in the polls. Pages exist for many other Green Party candidates, such as Mike Nagy and Claude William Genest, who are both running in by-elections two weeks prior to this by-election. This entry should be acceptable. (64.26.169.22 (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Please see WP:WAX for information on why that argument is not usually considered convincing. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nagy is also being nominated for deletion, and Claude Genest has other factors that establish notability aside from his candidacy. justinfr (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other non-elected candidates such as Rob Oliphant have a Wikipedia entry. I think this entry deserves to stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.32.97 (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that WP:VAX indicates that the 'there are other such' argument is not sufficient to prove that a deletion is not warranted (since other such articles may not yet have been noticed), however, I believe that consistency is nevertheless an ideal held by all, and since other articles on green candidates have indeed been noticed, I believe it is incumbent upon the proposer to state whether all green candidate articles should be deleted, or if only this one, why only this one, and furthermore to state in what respect he/she thinks that the green party is so minor that their candidates should not have wikipedia articles and also to state at what point a party would no longer be so minor that wikipedia articles might be justified. --Paulalexdij (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:POLITICIAN is clear that unelected candidates aren't notable in and of themselves. Second, she fails WP:BIO in general, in that there is little coverage of her in the press - I've only found one article that would be considered a biography, rather than an announcement that she is running - and that was what appears to be a minor newspaper. Third, WP:WAX states that precedent - another Green Party candidate has a page - isn't a reason, as does WP:SEWAGE. Fourth, she is running in a minor political party - one that has yet to win any first or second level government seats as stated in Green Party of Canada. I feel that this impacts her notability - it is very different to be a candidate for a major political party than a minor one that has yet to win federal or provincial office. Do any of these, by themselves, make her not notable and thus the article worthy of deletion? Perhaps not, but all of them - combined - do. As far as I can tell, there is no case to be made that she is notable enough for an article, outside of "so-and-so does" which, as already mentioned, is not a valid argument. In fact, it is all the more reason to delete this article, as letting it stand will mean that the acceptance of this article will mean that every candidate, regardless of notability standards, will deserve one. Do we really want more WP:SEWAGE? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I guess the crux of the matter is how important the Green Party is, and of course we do know that they have never won any seats. On the other hand they are one of only five parties who have polled enough to garner government funding, and they are one of only four parties to have run a complete slate in the last election, so they are clearly in a different league from really minor parties, such as the Libertarians for example, who seem to have only one wikipedia article for all their candidates (which can easily be done seeing as they have never run anything near a full slate). Anyway, imho, fwiw, I think this article should not be deleted. --Paulalexdij (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete and Merge into article on relevant election as per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO1E. Candidates for office are not notable for that fact alone. RayAYang (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN as well as the general notability criteria. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't sufficient reason to keep or delete most articles and this is no exception. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2008 (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.