Talk:Above Znoneofthe

Page Relevance
Can someone justify the relevance of this wiki bio? I'm considering removing the page.

From what I gathered from reading this, this guy is a joke candidate that has never earned more than one percent of the vote during the election. As a general policy in Canadian elections, we don't create bios for unsuccessful candidates, even when they are part of major political parties. FluffyCanada (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not the author of this article but I would not consider the subject a mere "joke candidate." He literally, legally changed his name so that he most likely will always be the last name on the ballot in any election he runs. What's more, the "None of the Above" Party is meant more as a protest of the electoral system (although I personally disagree with the way they try to convey that message). It is, nonetheless, nothing akin to the Rhinoceros Party that really is a joke party, even though this guy has run once under that banner.


 * I don't disagree that this article could stand for improvement, but I would not want to see it be deleted from Wikipedia. MauriceYMichaud (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Changing your last name does not warrant notability. Neither does being an unsuccessful political candidate for the "None of the Above Party". Becoming a political candidate is not difficult in Canada, you simply need 50 signatures. Further, the Rhinoceros Party and None of the Above Party have uncompetitive nomination processes meaning most people that run for them are acclaimed. Also, as mentioned before even becoming a political candidate does not warrant notability even if you are a part of a major political party.


 * Protesting the electoral system could be significant if he's done something notable in that field, do you know of any examples?


 * I think I just can't find the right words and, respectfully, perhaps I'm not as invested as you are in keeping or deleting this article. I guess for me it's the name change that makes this one notable from all the rest of the fringe candidates out there. In short, I would find it regrettable if this article were to disappear, but it wouldn't shatter my life. MauriceYMichaud (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the input. Personally, I just don't quite see how changing your legal name warrants a wikibio article.

I've removed the PROD, and seeing the discussion here, an AfD would be more appropriate if you want to pursue it, as it is a bit more contentious than expected. I'd err on the side that he is notable, having had profiles of him made by Time and CTV (that satisfying GNG with multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, and non-trivial coverage). Ebe 123  → report 17:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more! This is not just another ordinary perennial candidate. There's more good than harm to keep this article. MauriceYMichaud (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. Easily satisfies WP:GNG, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient grounds for deletion. We have many other articles on perennial candidates who satisfy GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)