Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Campbell

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 of the debate was move to User:Peter Campbell's userspace. —Cleared as filed. 21:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Campbell

Vanity article by fairly not notabgle green candidate. Page also created user called Peter Campbell Jgritz 01:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy, not delete. Colonel Tom 01:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. Campbell might merit an article at some stage, but writing it himself is a bad idea. --Calair 01:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - he stood for 2 federal elections in a seat that was considered to be a "safe" seat before he first stood, and he changed the balance of power, which in turn had an impact on federal politics overall. This is a very notable achievement, and hasn't been done by many politicians. In a two-party system, this is the kind of thing that the 2 major parties talk about. He has received a lot of major national attention because of this feat, and is discussed regularly in parliament. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

comment - the federal seat of Kooyong is still certainly considered to be a safe liberal seat; Peter Campbell's candidacy has not affected that status. I would suggest that he hasn't affected the balance of power, and that his achievements aren't notable - unlike, say, Michael Organ's achievements, which certainly were. With respect, Colonel Tom 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy. --Thephotoman 03:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy if it is the same Peter Campbell. The only notable Green candidate to stand for Kooyong was Peter Singer. Kooyong is still safe for the Liberals and I doubt Petro Georgiou is losing too much sleep about him. Capitalistroadster 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)"
• comment. Peter Campbell 03:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC) I wrote this article before I was aware of the autobiography guidelines, so sorry about the breach of protocol in creating this page. Note that Kooyong has in fact changed from "safe Liberal status" in 2001 to "fairly safe liberal" now - as per the AEC website entry for Kooyong which is referenced in the article. If you have any doubts about whether Petro Georgiou thinks the Greens are a threat then you could ask him. During the 2002 State Election the Greens polled 19% in Hawthorn & 17% in Kew (lower house). I polled 15% in the upper house seat of East Yarra (now defunct). I have only included content that has been previously published rather than any "original content". Having said all this, I don't mind if the article is deleted.
• Delete or userfy. Ambi 08:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If he gets elected, then he can write an article about himself. --Roisterer 12:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

USERNEW: Vanity articles should be deleted. This man is trying to get preselected for the Greens again and now looks like he will lose!

And it will not be speedy deleted as recreated deleted article? Hrm. Well, I am nowhere near Kooyong and have never been to Kooyong, and I have heard of this guy. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. He's stood for 2 federal elections and possibly had some political impact. That said, I think the article is slightly POV, so I think a re-write or some editing would help it. - James Foster 13:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy - a candidate that has yet to score more than 20% of the vote in any election doesn't make it in the notability department, regardless of country, on running for office alone. The article looks like a political party policy paper. If the survives the vote, I'd suggest a dismabiguation since more people are familiar with another Peter Campbell: the character in the TV series Soap whose murder midway in the first season propels the events of the next two years of the popular 1970s sitcom. B.Wind 16:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There's also a journalist called Peter Campbell too. Although the politician is more notable IMO. But the journalist gets more google hits. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I have updated the article to remove POV and party political content. I have also removed the personal website link and added several links to external verifiable information sources and articles. I have also added this content to my user page in anticipation of its deletion. Peter Campbell 00:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete now that it has been userfied. nn and vanity. Sarah Ewart 19:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - As a new contributor, I think there is a problem with the process in train here. I checked the Help:Starting a new_page information prior to creating the page. There is no information there about criteria for page creation that is being applied in this discussion; namely that a page can only be created for a person deemed as notable, and that a person should not create their own page for vanity reasons. A Wikipedia search on "notable" and "vanity" yields no meaningful information on what these criteria are and how they are applied. Both appear to be very subjective and open to interpretation, and therefore considerably open to debate and dissent. I think this process needs to be made much clearer. Personally, I think any Greens candidate who scores the highest Green primary vote in any conservative held seat in Australia (in 2001) and the tenth highest Green primary vote for any lower house seat in Australia (in 2004) is notable. I think the top ten Greens seats (and candidates) would all be "notable". I bet each of the top 10 Liberal and Labor seats and candidates are. On the subject of vanity, the page now contains only information from verifiable sources, so I don't think it is "vain". Peter Campbell 21:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I did some searching and found the Vanity Page Guidelines. Some quotes relevant to this process is:

"vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is (whether or not defined by the proposed Wikipedia:Importance)" .

"An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity. Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject."

"The word vain derives from the Latin word vanus meaning: empty."

I believe the article is not "empty" and not unimportant, author bias notwithstanding Peter Campbell 11:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC).

• Userfy or delete, not elected = not notable. Note that the word "vanity" means something different in Latin as it does in English; its derivation is irrelevant, we're using the English meaning here. Radiant_>|< 13:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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.