Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Andrews

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, consensus is that the articles fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Andrews

Tim Andrews (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

simply being a President of ALSF is not sufficient, otherwise all previous presidents should have Wikipedia articles. A few media mentions does not satisfy substantial achievement required for notability

Delete Fails WP:BIO specifically: The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Tim Andrews is not very well known outside student politics circles. Only passing mentions in mainstream media. Andrews is also not an elected politician as the article creator incorrectly gave him the category of Australian politician. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per Michellecrisp's analysis. Good King Wenceslaus (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. We've deleted several officials of national youth parties and similar groups. Although they have an above-average likelihood of eventually, say, holding political office, they are not inherently notable and are generally not known outside the organization. In the few cases where someone holds this office and is otherwise notable, it's based on better and more in-depth sourcing than providing a quote during a protest. --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• keep There are numerous other sources I could have mentioned, I did not exactly have time to write out a list of other sources. Secondly, persons such as Rose Jackson (BEFORE the infamous Zionism story) & [Mathew Chuck] had entries. As the VSU debate is currently very relevant in the news, and the subject essentially heads the pro-vsu argument in the country at the moment (as can be seen from the submission on the alsf page) it is certainly relevant and notable. StuPol (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment so the best source is the submission from the ALSF page? Hardly a reliable source. If Andrews claim to notability is "subject essentially heads the pro-vsu argument in the country at the moment" then he should be mentioned as a subsection in the VSU article. At the moment, Andrews gets absolutely no mention of the Voluntary Student Unionism article. So that argument sounds weak. It can easily be argued that Brendan Nelson was the one who introduced it and the principal proponent being the Minister responsible at the time. If you can't find enough sources to add to the article about notability then he clearly fails WP:BIO, resubmit Rose Jackson or Mathew Chuk for deletion if you're not happy with them having articles.

Michellecrisp (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, i'll concede that. I'd argue in response that 1)both JJJ and Radio National's PM covered it last week 2)we'd probably be seeing a lot more of it in coming weeks (eg the protest/counterprotest this week) 3)I think Angus McFarlane as President of NUS should also have a page - I was going to create one for him but didn't get around to it 4)The VSU article is hopelessly out of date - i'm not a big advocate of VSU so never really felt like amending it, but it says nothing about Labor's reversal of stance last year, or the recent discussion paper and whats happenining more recently. I'd be happy to edit it if no-one else wants though. 5)I am happy with rose and chuk having articles - i just think we need to be consistent. And the argument about previous presidents i don't think is as important - this is a relevant topic. StuPol (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not here to second guess if Andrews becomes more notable in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.Michellecrisp (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:BIO. Twenty Years 12:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable as leader of prominant nation-wide organisation, quoted in numerous secondary sources. As noted by StuPol comparison with other student political leaders in Australia; it would seem from Mathew Chuk's site that he wasn't even President of NUS and still survived two deletion attempts. However, this does need clean up. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Looking into this a bit more, the closest possible analogy to the ALSF is the CRNC. Indeed, the ALSF is the direct Australian equivalent of the CRNC. The Chairman of the CRNC has a page, and there is no reason why the Australian equivalent should not have on either. Definatly worthy of inclusion as per WP:BIO. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You are using a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument here.Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too". In addition, if anyone here is a member of Young Liberals or ALSF or know Tim Andrews personally they should declare that interest to avoid conflict of interest. StuPol has declared they know Tim but not on the same side of politics. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice that when your account was created, your very first posts were about the Sydney University Liberal Club, inserting negative information about this club. Your edit history since that point, whilst diverse, does seem to suggest a very strong interest in matters relating to the NSW Division of the Young Liberals, and, specifically, Liberal Students and the Sydney University Libral Club. Your entire edit history would strongly suggest to me that you also know Tim Andrews and do not think particularly highly of him. However, I could be mistaken. Hmm, although if you want people to declare allegiances and I would suggest that perhaps it be applied accross the board and one side of politics is not singled out. In anycase, can happily declare I have never met nor spoken to Tim Andrews and only stumbled accross this as I was reviewing Michellecrisps edit history. Regarding my comparison, I certainly agree that comparisons can be highly subjective, however I think the CRNC-ALSF one holds very strongly (and is far, far stronger than the Rose/Chuk one). Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know nor have ever met or contacted Tim Andrews. If anyone cares to check the edits in question: [1], [2] feel free to. Your comment above (why would anyone search through my 1000's of edits back to March 2007) confirms my suspicion you may be a sockpuppet of User:LibStu who I have had dealings with previously. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And your suspicions would be wrong. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? If you check the time stamps you reviewed all my 1000's of contributions from March 07 in 18 minutes?? Really Ben? Michellecrisp (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed to review all your contributions, I merely scanned through some of them pertaining to relevant topics and feel was able to adequatly guage this. I have no idea who this Ben you are now calling me is, think this is all rather strange, and if you want to continue this discussion that you should do it on my talk page, not here. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Michelle, despite never having met or contacted by the article subject, are you, or have you ever been a member of the Young Liberals or involved with any part of the Liberal party whatsoever? If you are or have been, can you confirm that this is entirely motivated by proper editing principles, and not an attempt to remove Tim's article to somehow avoid scrutiny on the article? I'm not suggesting this is the case - but since you are calling for declarations of conflicts of interest it's only fair that you do the same (my declaration and comment is below). JRG (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I just read the comment above. Nope, I have no connection with and know nobody in Young Liberals, Liberal Party or in fact any youth or student politics circles or political party. My reasons for deletion of this article are spelt out clearly in line with Wikipedia policy. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet when you started on Wiki, the very first article you started editing was the Sydney University Liberal Club. Inserting negative information. And since then you've shown a consistent interest in editing pages regarding Liberals, and obviously have them on your watchlist. And you claim to have no connection with politicals. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE! and you've constantly edited positive info on Alex Hawke, got Anthony Albanese page restricted because you kept on POV pushing and even admitted you're on Hawke's Facebook friend list. Editing doesn't mean a connection, I've edited Cardiff a lot but have never been there! I don't deny adding negative info but I have also added positive info from Liberal politicans such as [3] Michellecrisp (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable outside his sphere. —Moondyne click! 02:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete but merge sections of the article elsewhere - Tim is definitely not notable enough for his own Wikipedia article at present - though some of the comments should be shifted elsewhere (the stolen generation apology article, the VSU in Australia article and the ALSF article, for example. For what it's worth, I have met the subject of the article, although not for some years now - but it was not in a political sense - I'm not involved in student politics at all. JRG (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So would you also state Charlie Smith is not notable and propose that that be deleted? Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF exists argument. Please keep discussion here to notability of Tim Andrews. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish to draw your attention to WP:OSE which states "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". I further quote "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.". Whilst I am not making the point that this article should survive simply because someone in an exactly-identical-position has a page, I do think it can help contribute to the debate. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N, lack of likely WP:RS beyond a few incidents, and WP:BIO. Until he is elected to office at state or federal level or, for example, becomes a party president (rather than ALSF, which isn't even the more famous Young Liberals, I might note) then there is no reason for him to have an article. If an "other stuff" argument is going to be raised I might note this vote has considerable precedent on AfD, with many student politician or political candidate articles having been deleted (including both ones I voted to keep and to delete on different grounds). Orderinchaos 14:40, 21 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.