Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Sanders

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Sanders

2005 British parliamentary candidate who came in 4th with 4.3% of the vote. The constituency itself was only notable in that the Labour majority was reduced, and the victor seems to be an unordinary MP. Delete. NatusRoma 03:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I think 4.3% is very good for a Green candidate in a national election. Kappa 07:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, every other politician seems to find his or her way into Wikipedia, so why not this guy? Jamyskis 12:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of stronger notability is provided. Losing candidates from major parties for a nation's highest office generally get enough detailed media coverage and general public attention to be notable. A fourth-place finisher from a minor party for an ordinary legislative seat, however, isn't encyclopedic unless there was some really major issue related to that candidate's involvement. No indication of that is in the article. Kappa continues campaign against notability with above vote; Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Barno 14:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike Sanders, Kilroy was at one point a Labour MP, and appears to have been notable for more than just coming in fourth. The only other bit of trivia related to Jacob Sanders is that he's a nephew of American politician Bernie Sanders. I don't think those two facts warrant inclusion. NatusRoma 19:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any politician who has stood in a national election is notable. -- Jonel 15:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Jonel. His politics does not come into it. 194.203.22.148 15:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have all sorts of obsure politicians here, that's one of the reasons Wikipedia exists! PedanticallySpeaking 16:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Standing in a UK Parliamentary election is not actually that difficult (if you are willing to risk losing your deposit, as Mr Sanders has done), and Mr Sanders was neither extraordinarily successful or unsuccessful. Average Earthman 18:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. – Kaihsu 20:26, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. Losing a parlimentary seat isn't quite notable, but the (trans-Atlantic) familial connections to other politicians pushes it to notability. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:18, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. – mildly notable for his good share of the vote, but even so, I can't see any reason why standing in a parliamentary election does not justify an article. It's not that hard to do so, agreed, but then not that many people do it, and those that do often have other, interesting, attributes. Naturenet 21:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a lost cause, but I have to protest at this notabilizing of everybody who ever ran for public office. Millions of people do this every year. Most of them have fewer accomplishments than are listed on our typical vanity page created by a high school sophomore. It's absurd that we reject successful businesspeople as "self-advertisers" and people with some community stature as "vanity", but carefully list every idiot who got 100 people to sign their candidacy petition! ---Isaac R 02:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Running for parliament is not the same as running for a local council, so "millions of people" doesn't apply to this case. The concept of "notable" should not get in the way of "verifiable and important to users". If wikipedia is doing its job of explaining national politics, it needs to cover these idiots minor party candidates. Kappa 06:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can I just point out an error in Isaac R's comment? It's not 100 signatures needed to run for UK Parliament. It's ten. Oh, and 500 quid for the deposit. Oh, and you can't be bankrupt, a judge, a bishop, a peer or in the army. That's about it really. Average Earthman 10:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sanders, however, also received the Green Party nomination for his office, if I understand the facts. Getting that nomination presumably took more than 10 signatures. This is still borderline notable IMO, but the family connection with a quite notable USA politician makes this entry interesting (should be expanded though). The fact politics "runs in the family" and so on. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:21, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
      • Who said anything about local elections? There are about a hundred national legislatures on this planet, with a collective membership of maybe 20,000. I guess I was overestimating when I said that millions run for these 20,000 seats every year, but it's gotta be in the high six figures. Is every single one of these people notable? Or are British politicians more notable than others? ---Isaac R 17:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This wasn't a particularly good result even for a minor party candidate. Do we include every candidate at a UK general election in recent years? This must be thousands of people. If you vote to keep this, you are setting a very problematic precedent. We would have to include candidates for legislatures in other important countries. You were warned! I'm prepared to include all MPs in recent years. PatGallacher 11:18, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
Don't forget to read this before you do. And don't sweat about precedents. Naturenet 15:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have fun with that, PatGallacher. Also remember Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 17:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not paper, but it not a general knowledge base either. The "not paper" argument says we draw our boundaries very broadly -- but we do draw them. Please don't trot it out every time you disagree with other people's definition of notability -- it's not relevent. ---Isaac R 17:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read these linked articles, and I stand by my vote to delete. There are over 600 seats in the UK House of Commons, an article for every MP in recent years (which I am prepared to go along with) already takes us into 4 figures. An article for every candidate, or even every one from the dozen or so semi-serious parties with significant representation in elected authorities must take us into 5 figures. And then you have the issue of candidates from other countries... PatGallacher 21:00, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
  • I remind people that wikipedia is not paper when they use arguments about "thousands of people", or even tens of thousands of people. Kappa 20:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge database: "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement." I don't think that getting 4.3% of the vote in a Parliamentary election is really an achievement. For example, [1] estimates 3,521 candidates for the 2005 general election. Going back even a decade suggests upward of 10,000 candidates. Thus, standing in a Parliamentary election is not in itself a notable achievement. Something more than the bare fact of candidacy is necessary to prove sufficient notoriety. NatusRoma 21:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kappa, I've responded to your "not paper" argument any number of times, and you've simply ignored me. Ok, you have no obligation to do so. Bu if don't want to defend your argument, don't complain when nobody pays attention to it. ---Isaac R 01:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that anyone interesting in this election will be interested in its candidates indicates adequate notoriety. Kappa 21:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had a friend in college whose roommate's brother ran for Congress in California in 1980 and lost. I don't even remember the guy's name. But if this article is kept, I'll call my friend and see if he remembers his name, then we'll collaborate on a 3000-word aricle about the guy. You know, just in the interest of wasting everybody's time on such highly "notable" material. C W Merchant 20:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a politician who didn't win a seat is not notable. Cedars 15:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete you do realize that there are hundreds of thousands of people that ran for national parliaments? Or even been elected there? Grue 18:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Failed minor candidate who garnered a tiny percentage of the vote. Many comments here describe him as a politician, which is inaccurate. To be a politician you have to win an election. Gamaliel 07:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not elected = not notable. Radiant_* 12:47, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As long as the article is free of POV and vanity, his notability is sufficiently established. A measurable percentage of votes in a national election (especially when that nation is so central to this language version of WP) is well within a reasonable threshold of notability. Dystopos 21:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Kingturtle 02:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete →Iñgōlemo← talk 04:49, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
  • Keep of course Tedneeman 23:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Sanders&oldid=1167439614"