Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Beresford

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 - SimonP 13:42, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Charlie Beresford

Yet another British Columbia general election, 2005 candidate, but this one's an NDPer. It's reasonable to expect that she has a chance of winning (Oak Bay-Gordon Head is a swing riding), but I don't think she should have an article before the election. (BTW, note also that article title is misspelled; should be Charley.) Bearcat 00:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I don't believe that 'chance of winning' should be criteria to keep unless she has other notable accomplishments, in which case, that's the reason to keep. --Spinboy 01:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'd say Keep, in that I *do* believe "chance of winning" is enough to justify a page prior to an election. The article seemed encyclopedic enough from a cursory glance, as well; if some parts are vanity, they can be fixed without deleting the page. CJCurrie 01:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think keeping an article on the basis of "chance of winning" in a future election is a dangerous precedent with too much potential for abuse. I fully support recreating the article if she does win, but I don't think we should be in the business of predicting future outcomes. Bearcat 01:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a phonebook or a direcotry of Canadian political hopefuls--nixie 02:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete politely, at least until after the election. Then we'll see. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--I'll accept actual members of provincial legislatures, or major-party candidates for national legislatures, but not candidates for provincial legislatures. Meelar (talk) 03:47, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a good article and two terms as the chair of the Victoria school board should mean something. - SimonP 04:17, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think school board chairs normally get articles on here. Bearcat 01:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Still, I'll agree with SimonP to keep. Samaritan 20:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-elected = non-notable. Radiant! 08:53, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. On top of being about the most boring thing I have ever read it's basically a political advert. These are seeping into wikiepdia at a disturbing rate. The number of people who have ever run for office on the level of the US House of Representatvies, or the Parliaments of Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, et al. must be in the hundreds of thousands. When they hold office at this level they are notable. When they run they usually are not. I think there's a wiki voters guide out there. Maybe they want this, but it's not good for wikiepdia. -R. fiend 16:10, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless somehow notable for non-election. Chris 01:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I wonder at the discrepancy between name in title and name in article - David Gerard 23:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I could easily imagine that this person might deserve an article, but this candidacy-promoting puff piece does not belong. Delete -- Jmabel | Talk 04:22, Mar 19, 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.