Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Ivory
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 keep, may require some cleanup per discussion. Arkyan • (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trevor Ivory
Stub article about a person selected as a Parliamentary candidate in the UK. The general election is probably not for two years, and he has no other notability. Sam Blacketer 09:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Very weak delete - he was the subject of multiple independent etc etc last year when (while he was chairman of South Norfolk Conservatives) he publicly said "Tony Blair should kill himself and cheer us all up" (or something along those lines), but that aside he hasn't really come to any attention - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Google news archive results are mostly about that one event, but there are other events amongst those. Also, he was an active in politics prior to running, as I have now added to the article. I am neutral on this article. John Vandenberg 03:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep – I'd have thought any [serious] candidate for [a significant] public office who is mentioned in mainstream media would, by definition, be notable. One aspect of being encyclopaedic, for me, means that nearly every public figure [(where 'public' means visible to a significant population)] should have an article. If this chap gets quoted somewhere, and I wonder who he is, wouldn't it make sense to be able to find a short Wikipedia article? I guess I am an inclusionist; I don't see the harm in having articles for minor figures and minor topics so long as they pass some triviality [but not trivial] threshold. I am uncomfortable with the idea of a cabal pronouncing somebody to be "non-notable". Trevor Hanson 03:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC) [Original text went further than I meant. DGG has it right. Trevor Hanson 04:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)]
-
- Comment - remember that the UK has 659 MPs, and nine major political parties - while a lot of those parties are regional so won't be contesting every seat, each seat will have a minimum of three serious candidates (Labour, Lib Dem, Tory) - that's a lot of articles - iridescenti (talk to me!) 08:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment – a valid point, though "a lot of articles" (out of 2,407,913 articles in English) is a matter of interpretation. I don't see anything surprising in 2,000+ bio stubs being added each UK election cycle. A newspaper research desk would presumably be doing the same thing. (These comments may not belong here, but strike me as going to the heart of the matter discussed in M:Inclusionism: How minor a topic is too minor?) Trevor Hanson 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see that, thanks to user:jayvdb, the article now has six media citations, two website references, and a handful of basic bio facts. For my money, it's a scanty but useful summary of who the person is. If I came across his name in a newspaper account and looked him up on Wikipedia, I think the current article would cross the threshold of usefulness. Trevor Hanson 22:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment – a valid point, though "a lot of articles" (out of 2,407,913 articles in English) is a matter of interpretation. I don't see anything surprising in 2,000+ bio stubs being added each UK election cycle. A newspaper research desk would presumably be doing the same thing. (These comments may not belong here, but strike me as going to the heart of the matter discussed in M:Inclusionism: How minor a topic is too minor?) Trevor Hanson 18:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - remember that the UK has 659 MPs, and nine major political parties - while a lot of those parties are regional so won't be contesting every seat, each seat will have a minimum of three serious candidates (Labour, Lib Dem, Tory) - that's a lot of articles - iridescenti (talk to me!) 08:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep I don't go quite as far as Trevor, and I think those contending for purely local offices are not necessarily notable. But he is the candidate of a major party for a national legislative seat, and given those two factors, I think he's notable. However, I have found out that not everyone agrees with me about this. I'd be happier with a second RS.DGG 03:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- A few more sources have been added. John Vandenberg 05:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Mr Ivory or his agent may want to consider the legal implications of allowing him to be described here as a parliamentary candidate rather than a prospective parliamentary candidate. My recollection is fuzzy but as I recall it could result in money spent from now on being counted against his election expenses. BTLizard 13:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- [1] may be relevant, and his bio on his own blog says Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for North Norfolk. John Vandenberg 14:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
-
- BTLizard's right - they're only PPCs until the election's actually called (some time in 2009-10) - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keap. With several references, this article could probably stay on. However, it is pretty short, but could be expanded, not deleted. Harry Jolly
- 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.
