Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Norman

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 No consensus, therefore keep. moink 03:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Russell Norman

A political candidate is not inherently notable and a google search doesn't turn up much on this guy. Delete. Andypasto 21:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, and the entry does no harm whatsoever. As he's ranked tenth on the Green Party's list, he has a significant chance of getting into Parliament — the Greens won nine seats last time, so an increase of just one seat would see him elected. The fact that his name doesn't show up on Google probably has something to do with the fact that I misspelled it — I won't try moving it until this is resolved, though.
  • Fair enough, but could you at least tell us the correct spelling so we can research his notability? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:20, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry. The correct spelling is "Russel", with one l. Google search here, 232 hits. -- Vardion 22:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • That's still a hard one because it's a pretty common name. I added "Green" to the search and pulled 47 Google hits, and even then roughly half were other Russel Normans, making the actual score somewhere around 20-25 Google Hits (and keeping in mind that this is the New Zealand version of Google here). I'm going to have to vote delete for now, though obviously that will change if he actually gets his seat. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
        • Okay. I would just like to note, though, that the NZ version of Google uses the same database as the others — I think perhaps the algorithm is different (ranking NZ-relevant things higher, for example), but the number of hit isn't inflated by using the NZ version. (Perhaps that's not what you were implying, though. If not, sorry for the misunderstanding). -- Vardion 22:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• A just-now emerging political figure in small New Zealand is not likely to Google-test well, but his high place on the electoral list of one of the world's most successful Green parties makes him quite notable. Keep, and I will resubmit it for vfd myself if he doesn't win the seat on the list of a party in the election rumoured for late July, and no later than September this year. Samaritan 23:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if, as per Vardion, the guy has a half-decent shot at getting into NZ parliament .Meelar (talk) 23:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but move to the correct spelling. His chances of election may not be as high as suggested above, but they're certainly not zero, and we're not in the business of predicting the election results. Whether the article is worth keeping can be debated after the election. Note that Vardion is adding short bios of all candidates in this election with a non-zero chance of being elected, and I think that's very worthwhile for us to have.-gadfium 00:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't quite go so far as to say that I'm writing bios for "all candidates in this election with a non-zero chance of being elected", but I'm trying to make sure that anyone who eventually is elected isn't a red link when it occurs. Personally, I would like to include all candidates (after all, what harm would it actually do?). But that's probably not going to happen. -- Vardion 01:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • What, even if they're of the level of Tarquin Fintim-Limbim-Whimbim-Lim Bus Stop-F'Tang-F'Tang-Olé-Biscuit-Barrel, who stood in the Corby 1981 by-election in the UK? (He took his name from a Monty Python sketch, and yes he was a student) Average Earthman 18:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I think that someone like that would actually be more worthy of an article, as he sounds considerably more interesting than most other by-election candidates. Basically, my view is that including minor candidates doesn't in any way hurt Wikipedia, and so just so long as the information about them is verifiable and NPOV, it might as well be included. If there's someone willing to create the articles, of course — I certainly wouldn't consider the lack of complete coverage to be a gap or flaw in Wikipedia. But there's no need to worry that I'll be attempting something like this — I doubt most Wikipedians would share my view, and I'm quite prepared to abide by the consensus. (Although I still think that Russel Norman fits well within the scope of Wikipedia — he actually stands a chance of being elected.) -- Vardion 20:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep because wikipedia isnot paper Yuckfoo 01:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. GrantNeufeld 02:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not elected = not notable. Also agree with Andrew. Radiant_* 09:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep wikipedia is not paper, but move to correct spelling. - Drstuey 00:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but without prejudice against re-creation if he wins the election. Rossami (talk) 23:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete political hopefuls--nixie 03:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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.