Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Clarke (politician)

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. — Scientizzle 15:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Clarke (politician)

Mark Clarke (politician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This biography does not establish notability. WP:BIO states “Just being...an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability…” and the subject is not “…notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.”

Indeed the only claims to any notability stem from being a former chair for Conservative Future (but the only other person to not be a redlink on that list is notable for being involved in a broadcaster), being the subject of the documentary which itself was deemed not notable and being a PPC which is already establish by WP:BIO as not being notable.

The page has mainly been edited by a series of IPs [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] acting as SPAs, and more recently by one user who appears to be an SPA [6].

A Google search for “Mark Clarke” mainly turns up blogs run by or for the subject, and lists about 423k hits, but mainly because of the recent death of Arthur C Clarke. After removing the PROD [7] Bastin added a couple of extra references but the bulk of the information is not coming from credible third party sources but political blogs, and even the new references do not establish that Mark Clarke has done anything notable outside of Chair of CF and being a PPC, neither of which in themselves justify a biography on Wikipedia.

The references are written by Clarke [8] [9], mention him only in passing with reference to his chair as CF [10], are another person’s blog [11] or come back 403 [12]. None of them establish notability of the individual concerned. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete - is about one good article away from having achieved sufficient coverage from third party sources independent of him, but I don't think he's quite there. Remember, though, that it's quite possible for an unelected candidate to be notable if there exists sufficient coverage - unelected candidates aren't automatically notable, but nor are automatically non-notable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. On two grounds:

1. Clearly, the grounds for 'notability' imply sufficiency, not necessity. That it, it is quite plausible that a candidate for major office is notable simply by the fact of running for office. I would contend that, of the range of offices from the Presidency of the United States to the local council of Esch-sur-Sure, Parliament is a relatively notable position: and hence major party candidates may well qualify simply by being candidates for Parliament. And that ignores the fact that, due to Tooting being a target seat and Clarke being recently-departed chairman of Conservative Future, he's actually considerably more notable than the average parliamentary candidate.
2. Numerous sources have been cited: national newspapers, major independent blogs, etc. The references in Byrony Gordon's Telegraph piece is not incidental (he is quoted consistently, it includes biographical details, and a profile picture of him!). He has also written pieces for the Telegraph (cited). And that's a newspaper with a circulation of 880,000 copies a day; if one included local newspapers (which are reliable and independent), you would see considerable media coverage that would establish him as notable under the primary criterion and also as a major local political figure, which is confirmed by the preoccupation that both right- and left-wing blogs have with him. I am in the process of adding references, but contend that the current number is enough to prove notability.

On a further point of clarification, the article has not been edited mainly by those single-purpose accounts. It has mainly been vandalised by SPAs. It has mainly been edited by me. Were you to attempt to ascerain my 'single purpose', it would be on editing articles on Luxembourg, not on Conservative politicians. Bastin 19:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment notability is the sole reason for keeping WP:BIO articles, the refs are weak, he may be quoted a lot in the one article and also written an opinion piece for the Telegraph, these are not reasons to keep this article. He has done nothing of note, he is a candidate for "a target seat" is not a reason. He is a former chair of CF, not a reason. The article has been edited by SPAs in the links above, I know that it has also had one off vandals, and I never said you were an SPA, I said Daveboat was an SPA, and as of the start of this AfD he was. If you remove the ref written by Mark, and remove Blog refs then do a Google search you will find little of susbsatance to justify keeping what is close to a vanity piece. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete' Well argued and presented nom. The subject of the article appears to be more non-notable than the average. It seems to be straining for something to say when the article mentions that the subject stood unsuccessfully for President of his university debating society on two occasions. SilkTork *^YES! 22:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, hasn't won yet; consensus finds that politicians who haven't won elected office and are not otherwise notable (such as by being retired athletes or whatever) don't get Wikipedia articles. This keeps Wikipedia from being a campaign PR outlet, and the articles from being endless POV battlegrounds. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• neutral seems to be notable , but most of search engine results fail to give any concrete notability ,even though he has not won in any it doesnt mean tht he is not notable , but for sure this article seems to be a third party source , if the creator of this article provides some external notability then im ready for a keep --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete reasons as stated by Blast Ulna. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, consensus has been for awhile now that merely being a candidate is not a guarantor of notability. In fact, WP:BIO even states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". Of course, prospective candidates can be notable for other reasons, but I don't think that being chair of a few minor Conservative organisations is going to do it in this case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC).
• Delete: Candidate and media appearances do not cross the bar. He's quite young, yet, in politician years, and has not had significant achievements, yet. There is no doubt that he is himself interested in raising his profile, and so he will show up, but Wikipedia should be one of the last measures, not one of the means. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:32, 28 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.