Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Matthew Fowler
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 31 August 2007. The result of the discussion was Delete. |
The talk page has been retained as containing information related to the deletion that is not included in the AFD deliberation. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The Australian Democrats are a significant party that have been established 30 years. They have had a major impact on the political scene in Australia. It might interest you to read about the history of the party[1] and also their track record over the last year [2]
This hardly makes them obscure. With 4 hard working Senators and a State MP in South Australia this hardly makes the Democrats obscure.
Matthew Fowler is extremely well known on Kangaroo Island, SA and Alice Springs NT because of running as candidates for council. Getting 15% of the vote in the race for Mayor on Kangaroo Island hardly makes him obscure.
[edit] Why this article should be deleted
First of all, it was not my claim that the Australian Democrats are an obscure party. The Democrats themselves certainly are notable: that's why the party has a wikipedia entry.
However, that does not mean that every single candidate the party fields is therefore notable and merits a wikipedia entry.
You assert two reasons as to why this person (as opposed to his party) is notable:
1. He is apparently "extremely well known on Kangaroo Island, SA and Alice Springs NT because of running as candidates for council". But this is vague and unverified.
2. He achieved "15% of the vote in the race for Mayor on Kangaroo Island." That translates to a few hundred votes at best. This a pretty weak basis for notability.
Dlw22 07:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It is amusing to see the use of absolute terms like, "every single candidate". This is 1stly hardly logical 2ndly suggests something more than neutrality Mifren 23:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's amusing to see when references to "15%" of the vote but nothing is made of the other 75%. Did the winner get it? How many other candidates shared the pot? 15% on its own says nothing, other than the fact that he didn't win. I also notice the straw man argument above that defends the Australian Democrats. Why did you feel the need to do that? The article isn't about them, the proposal to delete isn't about them. Notability isn't inherited. Mr Fowler doesn't automatically become notable because he belongs to a political party that is. Try as hard as I may I can't get away from the mental image of a guy stood on the podium wearing a hat with dangling corks. So far the article is doing its best to assert notability though all the while managed to easily not demonstrate any. The expression that comes to mind is "trying to polish a turd", I'm afraid it just can't be done.--WebHamster 22:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Refuting the Straw Policemen
What appears to be most amusing about the comments made above is the lack of being able to grasp the most basic of facts. I refer to the opening line made by the WebHamster:
"It's amusing to see when references to "15%" of the vote but nothing is made of the other 75%."
Clearly the response lacks credibility when even basic math (15+75= 90, not 100) is presented incorrectly. Secondly, I beg the question of why a resident of the UK would have any comprehension of the notability of a former resident of Kangaroo Island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.234.59 (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1) It's called a typo in the UK, what do the Aussies call it? 2) Because this resident of the UK knows enough to read WP:N and WP:BIO before writing an article about someone who thinks that being a serial candidate is enough for an article in WP. YMMV. --WebHamster 03:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
so does that mean this entry has to be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.234.59 (talk) 05:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- It all depends on what the consensus is in the AFD --WebHamster 10:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
