Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Craig

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Carrite and DGG make nice arguments, but he does actually meet WP:GNG per Northamerica1000's sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Craig

Colin Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Craig is a political candidate who has not held office. Mattlore (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does that justify a deletion? He has a very high chance of winning the Rodney seat polling at least 10% ahead of the National candidate. He and his party have a very good chance of getting a seat this election. Luke96241 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:POLITICIAN; also fails more generally WP:NOTE. Self-reported polling does make for a verifiable "very high chance". The reported polling is against the sitting MP who will not actually stand in Rodney this year -- the National candidate for Rodney is Mark Mitchell, which tars the whole claim, making it seem more puff that fact. While the political party Conservative Party of New Zealand is sufficiently noteworthy, Colin Craig is not shown to be by the article as it stands. Ridcully Jack (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if the constituency doesn't even know Smith isn't standing, what makes you think that they would automatically vote for a nobody? Luke96241 (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the article reads as if Colin Craig doesn't know who his main opponent is - but mostly my point is that self-reported high polling is not verifiable in itself. I would support merging information about Colin Craig into the party page. Ridcully Jack (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Luke96241, WP is for what has happened rather than what may happen. If Colin Craig is elected then he is justified in having a WP article per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found his company on the register. Referenced. Luke96241 (talk) 7:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep. I looked at Conservative Party of New Zealand, there's more coverage about him in those references than there is about the parties itself. If anything, we should delete that article instead of this one. I think he meets GNG--coverage is local but extends back to May of this year. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this page will be kept then. Luke96241 (talk) 5:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 00:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin This article was relisted per discussion at WP:DRV.--v/r - TP 00:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN, and it is highly unlikely he will meet it after November 26. I've tried to build the article, but there's nothing that convinces me of his notability. --IdiotSavant (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am in favor of the lowest of all possible bars to inclusion of political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections without regard to ideology. This is the founder of a significant political organization in New Zealand. As such, he is a subject worthy of encyclopedic biography on a per se basis, in my estimation. This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in encyclopedias. This is why people come to WP -- to find out details about public figures and institutions. Wikipedia would be weakened by the loss of this material offset by no corresponding improvement to the project. Carrite (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that sounds more like an appeal for changes in policy, rather than a policy based argument for inclusion. Seems to me that the question is whether GNG applies, since he pretty clearly fails POLITICIAN. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy If the decision is to delete this article, please move to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/politics/New MPs instead. I agree that Craig fails WP:POLITICIAN, but I'm much less sure that he would also fail WP:BASIC. Schwede66 19:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; I just thought I'd add a few comments here because when I nominated the article I didn't think the discussion would go on this long or be this contentous. I think it is not in dispute that he fails WP:POLITICIAN. Therefore the discussion is around if he qualifies under WP:GNG. In my opinion he does not. His political career consists of founding a small minor party, running third in the mayoral contest and organising a well funded but poorly attended march. His business career is not notable; while he seems to have become very wealthy I am not entirely sure what type of industry he was in and I have not seen any coverage of his business career, especially pre his involvement in politics. I think he fails GNG at the moment will probably do so until after the election at best. Happy to support the page being userfied if someone wants to keep it for that possibility. Mattlore (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These articles are about Craig in detail, and are from reliable sources. This constitutes significant coverage: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Significant coverage in reliable sources qualifies topic notability, per WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northamerica1000 (talk • contribs) 16:33, October 6, 2011‎
  • Keep The GNG is not policy, and neither is POLITICIAN. the are guidelines, and what actually is policy, is that guidelines intrinsically have exceptions; WP:N goes particularly far to make it very plain that it in particular has exceptions; and the GNG makes it even plainer. The criterion for inclusion is that we want to include it. We have often gone rather far to stretch inclusiveness to the most liberal possible standard for political and religious parties and movements, and it is right we do so, for it is these areas in particular where unconscious prejudice can most affect judgements. The only protection against it is to include any such that can be verified. Basically, I agree with Carrite, and endorse the reasons they give. It is not changing policy; it is using judgement. The actual policy is to do whatever helps the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 7 October 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colin_Craig&oldid=1072129712"