Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Uppal

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.

[edit] Tim Uppal

The result was no consensus, defaults to keep. Andrew c [talk] 02:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Losing candidates for election typically (I believe?) aren't considered sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia, and there is little else on the page that is otherwise encyclopedic. Contested prod moved to AfD. Cmprince 04:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep There are lot of articles that covered his campaigns, which I think makes him barely notable Corpx 04:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Based on the following arguement Corpx 05:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete there are a lot of articles about candidates because elections are notable. Insert any random name in Uppal's place, and the level of coverage does not change. Failed political candidates are not inherently notable, and no other claim to notability exists. Resolute 04:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hear me out. I created the article because anyone who knows anything about Canadian politics will understand that he will win in his seat (barring some sort of major political re-alignment). He is running in a safe seat, and I created this article because he will be an MP in the future. If it is deleted, it will just get re-created. This is not an article about a failed candidate, but preperation for a future MP. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • He is not a future MP. You may speculate that he will be elected, but that does not automatically elevate him to the House of Commons at some point in the future. Skeezix1000 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral The chances of him not getting elected (provided he survives until the election) are up there with the chances of Mars leaving orbit, but it's still a bit WP:CRYSTAL for me because there is that one in a thousand chance he won't survive. --Charlene 06:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are less notable candidates who run for office entered in Wikipedia. The article just needs to be sourced and possibly expanded. He appears to have enough notability to be accepted. Jjmillerhistorian 12:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a multiple candidate who is almost certain to be elected at the next election, however if for some unlikely reason he is not elected then delete would probably be apporpriate at that time. Davewild 18:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep weak because no sources are provided. I'm sure all the good things about him are true, but this is a bio article.DGG 03:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability. The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Article needs sources. Callelinea 04:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, so you don't like our notability criteria, no need to prove a point by trying to impose your criteria on debates where we use the actual criteria. This user has been spamming several debates with this BTW. Morgan Wick 07:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. When he wins office, not just a nomination, then he clears the notability bar for elected officials and this article can be recreated. Canuckle 16:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, elected politicians in significant offices yes, candidates no. Deiz talk 13:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just because someone is not elected to an office does not make them non-notable. Jjmillerhistorian 23:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right. But on the same basis, a failed candidate is not automatically notable either. Failed candidates that have articles should be notable for other reasons. If their failed elections runs are their only claim to fame, then the article should be deleted. Skeezix1000 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, makes no sense to delete now and re-create after the next elections. --Qyd 22:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's no reason to keep. You can WP:USERFY it or just copy the content elsewhere. Corpx 01:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you figure a more complicated way? vote stays. --Qyd 03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep We should keep this biography just on the premise that he lost 2 elections as a Federal Conservative / Canadian Alliance candidate in Alberta, regardless there is a 99% possibility he will win this seat, I will personally eat every sock in my sock drawer and post the video to You Tube if he looses, I'm that sure he will win this time. --Cloveious 04:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Failed candidates are not inherently notable, and do not meet WP:BIO. His stint as a radio host has the potential to make him noteworthy, but there is nothing in the article that suggests that is the case. As for the assertions on this page that "anyone who knows anything about Canadian politics will understand that he will win in his seat" and so forth, since when do the speculation, hunches, predictions, guesses and offers-to-eat-socks of a small group of Wikipedia editors trump WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL? Skeezix1000 15:21, 4 July 2007 (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.