Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Kininmonth
From 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 delete. Wizardman 02:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hugh Kininmonth
Article about a politician based entirely upon primary sources. Google throws up a lot of blogs/unreliable sources, but reliable sources appear to be limited to passing mentions only. He does appear to have a job in health, but I can't find any reliable reference to him being the Labour candidate for Coromandel. Not that that would make him automatically notable anyway. Prod was removed by author with a request for an explanation. Also note the author admits to having a conflict of interest. Happy to withdraw my nomination if I am shown reliable sources. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable, COI issues. Being a candidate does not confer notability, see WP:BIO#Politicians - for good reason, otherwise Wikipedia would become an election hoarding. JohnCD (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
DeleteRedirect - to Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2008 by electorate - WP:BIO is quite clear that candidacy for political office does not confer notability, and nothing else seems notable. dramatic (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)- Delete - I am unable to locate any coverage by third party sources independent of the subject; accordingly, he fails WP:N. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - will be notable if he wins, but not yet. --Helenalex (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - The Hugh Kininmonth article offers valuable information for the electors in the Coromandel electorate. The nature of New Zealand general elections with respect to electorates is the selection of candidates - not of incumbents versus opposition. Each electorate election brings forth a 'clean slate' with options being made primarily of candidates. Hence forth, Mr Kininmonth's candidacy does grant notability in the same way that Mrs Goudie's candidacy does. Within the electorate the contest is of notable worth - as expressed in the local media. Unfortunately the local media does not have an internet presence, if it did then I could cite the articles in the Hauraki Herald as a third party source. I can refer you to David Farrar's blog, www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008_election_candidates , whose candidate list is reliable and accurate. As a result of the Electoral Finance Act the major parties are hesitant to use their website for candidate info which resulted in the creation of Mr Kininmonth's blog. I implore the editors of this site to allow the retention of this article. Sugnaguy | (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2008
-
- Comment The "valuable information" that he is a candidate is already in Wikipedia at the appropriate location: Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2008 by electorate. Note that in accordance with guidelines, Candidates who have no prior notability are not linked to articles. Sandra Goudie has a Wikipedia article because she is a Member of Parliament. Her article does not even mention her candidacy for this year's election, and any attempt to use her article (or that of any incumbent MP) for electioneering is likely to be promptly reverted - so there is no "advantage" to incumbents who have Wikipedia articles over candidates who should not. The reasoning is simple. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and all content should be assessed with a long term perspective. If Hugh is not successful, then in 20 years time will the fact that he was once a candidate be noteworthy? No. Just as we do not have a biographies of all the unsuccessful Social Credit candidates from 1975. Finally, references in Wikipedia are NOT limited to web links only. Please provide the date on which the candidacy was announced in the Hauraki Herald and I will replace the non-neutral reference in the List of Candidates article with this independent one.dramatic (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - The purpose of the article is not electioneering, but exists as an affirmation of Mr Kininmonth's candidacy. Re Hauraki Herald, I will track down the date of publishing for you and leave it on your talk page when sought. Additionally, the blog post that I linked to as a reference is the press release which was passed to the Hauraki Herald for their article - it is therefore the original source with which Hugh's candidacy was announced and subsequently posted to the public domain. It is my opinion that in this case the candidacy of Hugh Kininmonth is of notability, ergo the existence of said article is worthwhile. The notability of a failed candidate in twenty years time is questionable, I adhere to that. However, it is logical to argue that the candidacy of Mr Kininmonth is notable from this time to the election and sometime thereafter even if his election is a failure. An election is of considerable notability, the involved candidates providing the bulk of that. It comes down to something rather simple; the notability of an article exists only for those whose interest dictates their viewing of such an article - the electors of Coromandel have an interest in the candidates of their electorate which provides sufficient notability. Sugnaguy (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2008
- Response - A website whose content is under the control of the subject of an article is not admissible as a reference because it cannot possibly be unbiased. Your claims about notability run against the guidelines established by consensus. If you wish to change that guideline, go and argue that point first, but I doubt if you'll have any luck, and Wikipedia is not in the business of creating "temporary" articles. Note that I have recommended redirection - so that if someone comes to Wikipedia and types Hugh Kininmonth in the search box, they will be taken to the Coromandel entry on the list of candidates for this election - which seems to encompass your goals for this article dramatic (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Further response: you may think that the mere fact of Mr Kininmonth's candidacy is notable, but the result of long debate and precedent as established in Wikipedia's guideline at WP:BIO#Politicians explicitly says it is not. And are you really suggesting that Wikipedia is the only way the electors of Coromandel can discover who their candidates are? JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Response - I am not, nor have I ever suggested that Wikipedia is the sole source of affirmation of candidates. However, Wikipedia is - with all its flaws - a trusted source of information. Preferable to many people for quick facts; local candidates being a sourced quick fact. As stated in my response to dramatic, I am happy with a redirection to the Coromandel entry in the list of candidates. Subsequently conceding that the article may be deleted due to overruling guidelines and a satisfactory compromise. Sugnaguy (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2008
- Comment - The purpose of the article is not electioneering, but exists as an affirmation of Mr Kininmonth's candidacy. Re Hauraki Herald, I will track down the date of publishing for you and leave it on your talk page when sought. Additionally, the blog post that I linked to as a reference is the press release which was passed to the Hauraki Herald for their article - it is therefore the original source with which Hugh's candidacy was announced and subsequently posted to the public domain. It is my opinion that in this case the candidacy of Hugh Kininmonth is of notability, ergo the existence of said article is worthwhile. The notability of a failed candidate in twenty years time is questionable, I adhere to that. However, it is logical to argue that the candidacy of Mr Kininmonth is notable from this time to the election and sometime thereafter even if his election is a failure. An election is of considerable notability, the involved candidates providing the bulk of that. It comes down to something rather simple; the notability of an article exists only for those whose interest dictates their viewing of such an article - the electors of Coromandel have an interest in the candidates of their electorate which provides sufficient notability. Sugnaguy (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2008
- Comment The "valuable information" that he is a candidate is already in Wikipedia at the appropriate location: Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2008 by electorate. Note that in accordance with guidelines, Candidates who have no prior notability are not linked to articles. Sandra Goudie has a Wikipedia article because she is a Member of Parliament. Her article does not even mention her candidacy for this year's election, and any attempt to use her article (or that of any incumbent MP) for electioneering is likely to be promptly reverted - so there is no "advantage" to incumbents who have Wikipedia articles over candidates who should not. The reasoning is simple. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and all content should be assessed with a long term perspective. If Hugh is not successful, then in 20 years time will the fact that he was once a candidate be noteworthy? No. Just as we do not have a biographies of all the unsuccessful Social Credit candidates from 1975. Finally, references in Wikipedia are NOT limited to web links only. Please provide the date on which the candidacy was announced in the Hauraki Herald and I will replace the non-neutral reference in the List of Candidates article with this independent one.dramatic (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep Why not give them a chance? Seems at least as interesting as many included, and it is not as though Wikipedia criteria are followed in practice. See the Denis Dutton entry for example? Kininmonth is an interesting name, doesn't he get points for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.15.223 (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policies are followed too laxly, but that doesn't mean that we should allow the policies and guidelines to be ignored willy-nilly. Take a look at this essay. J Milburn (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete We have clear precedence that candidates are not notable for being candidates. If he wins, this can be revisited. Eusebeus (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect per Dramatic, with no prejudice against re-creation if he wins. Grutness...wha? 23:59, 29 March 2008 (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.
