Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan de Jardin
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 keep. moink 11:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Alan de Jardin[edit]
His only claim to fame appears to be a horribly unsuccessful bid for head of his provincial party. You need more achievements than that to be considered "notable." ---Isaac R 06:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as above. --Veritol 12:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I was wondering when this issue would come up. We've already clarified that party leaders are notable in all (or almost all) cases. I suppose this is as good a time as any to clarify the rules for leadership candidates as well.
The Manitoba Liberal Party is a significant force in Manitoba politics -- it doesn't have many seats in the provincial legislature now, but it was the official opposition party less than twenty years ago. Its history dates back to 1882.
A credible case can be made that anyone who runs for the leadership of this party is automatically "notable". I grant, however, that de Jardin's situation is borderline. If the general consensus is to delete, I could easily move these three sentences to the page on Manitoba Liberal Party leadership conventions. CJCurrie 18:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep of course. --
Earl Andrew - talk 19:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Delete. --Spinboy 19:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to MPL page. José San Martin 20:35, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- The MPL page currently lists party leaders, but not the people who ran against them. So you're proposing a really big change. ---Isaac R 20:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It would be, yes. I could, however, move this information to the page for MPL leadership conventions (which is a separate page). CJCurrie 20:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The MPL page currently lists party leaders, but not the people who ran against them. So you're proposing a really big change. ---Isaac R 20:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Not elected = not notable. Delete. Radiant_* 11:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Samaritan 14:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think that canidates for internal party offices are notable, especially at a provincial level. Dsmdgold 14:40, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Ground Zero 14:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That policy is not relevent. We're debating whether Alan is notable, not whether there's room for him. ---Isaac R 17:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Since notability is os so very subjective, I vote Keep on the basis that Wikipedia is an appropriate place to gather information on political figures, including those who are not elected. He's notable to me, even if he's not notable to you. Also, the leadership of a party is not "internal", like, say the position of membership secretary. The leader is the public face iof the party. Ground Zero 17:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think we can all agree that the leader of a Canadian provincial party is notable. But this guy was never a party leader, nor did he ever hold another party office. He made a single run at party leader, in which he garnered only 6% of the vote. ---Isaac R 18:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Kappa below that 6% in this party leadership race does make him a serious candidate. Knowing that he ran against Sharon Carstairs, the iconic figure of the modern Manitoba Liberal Party, I want to know more about why the heck he did, what policy and/or presentation differences he offered against Carstairs, etc. Keep, and expand a bit if possible. Samaritan 17:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, Sam, it seems that quite a few of us are interested in learning more about this guy. It would be a shame if those who are not interested decide to delete the article and prevent it from ever gathering more information about him. But I guess there are always the endless Wikipedia articles about video game characters to keep us amused. Many people believe that they are notable enough to keep, but not real world political characters. <Sigh.> Ground Zero 21:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Kappa below that 6% in this party leadership race does make him a serious candidate. Knowing that he ran against Sharon Carstairs, the iconic figure of the modern Manitoba Liberal Party, I want to know more about why the heck he did, what policy and/or presentation differences he offered against Carstairs, etc. Keep, and expand a bit if possible. Samaritan 17:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think we can all agree that the leader of a Canadian provincial party is notable. But this guy was never a party leader, nor did he ever hold another party office. He made a single run at party leader, in which he garnered only 6% of the vote. ---Isaac R 18:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Since notability is os so very subjective, I vote Keep on the basis that Wikipedia is an appropriate place to gather information on political figures, including those who are not elected. He's notable to me, even if he's not notable to you. Also, the leadership of a party is not "internal", like, say the position of membership secretary. The leader is the public face iof the party. Ground Zero 17:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That policy is not relevent. We're debating whether Alan is notable, not whether there's room for him. ---Isaac R 17:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- keep he seems important - why not Yuckfoo 01:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Zero evidence of notability. Indrian 04:55, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, 6% makes him a serious candidate. Kappa 05:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Though my comments have been somewhat equivocal, my vote is to Keep. CJCurrie 23:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have to draw the line higher than 6% for a local politician
running for an internal position. Delete unless there is evidence that he has done more than this. Rossami (talk) 05:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)- As Ground Zero says above, this isn't an internal position. The leader of a political party in a Westminster system is both the head of that party's caucus and its candidate for the executive office. Calling it "local" is also doubtful; Manitoba is about the size of Afghanistan, and is a senior level of government. The closest American counterpart would be somebody who did similarly running for Democratic or Republican nomination for governor of Hawaii, which has about the same population. Alan de Jardin ran for Premier of Manitoba, by seeking leadership of a major party, and he did find a non-trivial base of support in that party. I'd like to know more. Samaritan 06:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) (corrected Samaritan 06:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC))
- I'll say it again -- nobody's saying that the office Jardin ran for is unimportant or unnotable. But running for that office by itself does not make you notable, any more than every person who ever ran for Governor of Hawaii is notable. (Or even Governor of California!) So yeah, we need to know more. The person to address that point is CJCurrie, who created the article. (And who has shown commendable detachment in discussing its proposed deletion!) So how about it? Do you have anything more on the guy, or should we assume that the article is more or less in its final form? ---Isaac R 06:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I wish I remember whose comment I got this from, but... it's a core principle of Wikipedia that its contributors only do what they want to do. And all in all, this works pretty well. Undoubtedly, CJCurrie is our house authority on Manitoba politics, but we shouldn't put him in the hot seat for expansions to any given article. Anyone with access to a newspaper microfilm collection with any Manitoba daily could surely find out more about de Jardin's candidacy. I should have access to an Ontario reference library soon enough and can see what they have. Samaritan 06:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'll say it again -- nobody's saying that the office Jardin ran for is unimportant or unnotable. But running for that office by itself does not make you notable, any more than every person who ever ran for Governor of Hawaii is notable. (Or even Governor of California!) So yeah, we need to know more. The person to address that point is CJCurrie, who created the article. (And who has shown commendable detachment in discussing its proposed deletion!) So how about it? Do you have anything more on the guy, or should we assume that the article is more or less in its final form? ---Isaac R 06:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- As Ground Zero says above, this isn't an internal position. The leader of a political party in a Westminster system is both the head of that party's caucus and its candidate for the executive office. Calling it "local" is also doubtful; Manitoba is about the size of Afghanistan, and is a senior level of government. The closest American counterpart would be somebody who did similarly running for Democratic or Republican nomination for governor of Hawaii, which has about the same population. Alan de Jardin ran for Premier of Manitoba, by seeking leadership of a major party, and he did find a non-trivial base of support in that party. I'd like to know more. Samaritan 06:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) (corrected Samaritan 06:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC))
- Keep, notably unsuccessful candidate. —RaD Man (talk) 06:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Article content is verifiable. - SimonP 19:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Verifiability of the content isn't an issue. We only care about the notability of the subject. The fact that I'm a certified expert in Microsoft Word is verifiable (I can point you at the web site), but doesn't make me notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ---Isaac R 17:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. Kappa 17:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Very true, I essentially believe in Jimbo's view, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. - SimonP 19:54, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
- If notability is not a criterion, then why do we delete vanity pages? ----Isaac R 23:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Unverifiable, can't be made NPOV. Kappa 00:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- Why is a vanity page unverifiable? Everybody can prove they exist, and their major achievements. And why can't a person write NPOV material about themselves? They just have to use the right language. ---Isaac R 01:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- The point is not that it is impossible for a vanity page to be NPOV but rather it is impossible to prove that it is NPOV. I don't think many people can point to secondary sources that confirm their existence, only primary sources. Remember we also have the No original research rule, so articles cannot be based on primary sources. - SimonP 19:00, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Why is a vanity page unverifiable? Everybody can prove they exist, and their major achievements. And why can't a person write NPOV material about themselves? They just have to use the right language. ---Isaac R 01:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- Unverifiable, can't be made NPOV. Kappa 00:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- If notability is not a criterion, then why do we delete vanity pages? ----Isaac R 23:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Very true, I essentially believe in Jimbo's view, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. - SimonP 19:54, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
- There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. Kappa 17:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Verifiability of the content isn't an issue. We only care about the notability of the subject. The fact that I'm a certified expert in Microsoft Word is verifiable (I can point you at the web site), but doesn't make me notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ---Isaac R 17:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: comparison to U.S. politicians. If I understand the Canadian system, a provincial premier is pretty much the equivalent of a U.S. state governor. And when a party comes to power, its party leader becomes premier. So in effect, somebody who runs for party leader is trying to become premier. ¶ I know, I know, there are factors that don't apply to U.S. politics -- coalition governments, party leaders have other responsibilities, etc. But it's a close approximation. ¶ So the nearest U.S. equivalent to would be somebody who once ran for Governor, lost by a big margin, and never did anything else to make the news. There are plenty of people like that. How many of them are notable? I'd argue that the answer is zero, or close to it. ---Isaac R 23:47, 2 May 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.