Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Rankin


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. This is the real result. There are four delete votes and one clean up vote (both clean up votes below were by the same user, who also vandalised this AfD discussion), so the consensus seems to be delete. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben Rankin
Has some notability (or claims thereof), but I am not convinced this person is notable enough for an article. I say delete, plus most of the Google hits are basically talking about a different person.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  04:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A real link is provided that confirms most of the facts provided. Mr Rankin is a viable candidate in the upcoming federal election in Canada, and thus should be maintained until at least after the election. Regarding the lack of google hits, the name Ben and surname Rankin are very common names.


 * Perhaps you are right. That is why I didn't put a speedy tag on it.  However, I don't recommend that this article stay on Wikipedia unless it is verifiable at the least.  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *   (talk)  04:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Never mind, it is verifiable, I am actually thinking about turning my vote to cleanup  ε  γκυκλοπαίδεια  *  (talk)  04:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with a cleanup vote, I have more information about the individual that I am collecting and will fix up the page within the next 48 hours to a higher standard.


 * Delete. Being a political candidate is generally not sufficient in my view to meet WP:BIO unless you have other significant achievements to your name. This guy is the President of the local Greens at his University and a political hopeful in the forthcoming Canadian elections. If there was an article on the relevant electorate in the 2005 Canadian elections, it should be merged to that page but he is not notable enough at this stage to have an article in his own right. If he were to be elected, he would then meet our notability criteria but I wouldn't have my money on it. Capitalistroadster 05:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Capitalistroadster. Ifnord 06:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

""cleanup''" The first-past-the-post system has meant that the Green Party of Canada, whilst attracting 5% of the national vote has yet to gain a seat yet. The candidates for the party, however, have been some of the most influential in shaping the environmental policies of the other major parties. Mr Rankin is a rising star in the federal Greens, and is fighting a race against a strong separatist candidate. Though he may not win, he is an important player in the Green Party and thus I feel deserves an article. He is as relevant as, for example Gary Lunn, an ordinary MP. As a rising protege in the 5th largest party in Canada, and the 4th largest pro-Canada party in Canada, I feel Mr Rankin deserves mention.

""cleanup"" The previous user cites the Parti Vert Du Quebec article, but that is for a provincial green party. This is a federal election candidate. Refer to: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051201.wxibbit01/BNStory/National/ The federal green party consistently polls between 4-9% of the national vote. The source provided above is Canada's most reputable newspaper. I don't detect any vane statements or promotional material, it appears to be a short biography of a candidate in the next election. He is included in the news media in Canada. Eg. http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/riding/060/
 * Delete, non-notable member of barely notable political party. He can come back when he wins. Which I'm sure will happen. Hell, I might even accept a really strong second, because of his party's notability but total lack of electoral success. Lord Bob 20:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even close: a politically ambitious university student in a minor party (0.44% of the vote in 2003, according to the Parti vert du Québec article). Call it promotion or call it vanity; what you can't call it is encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 01:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Parti vert du Québec is a different political party. This is a candidate with the Green Party of Canada. --maclean25
 * My mistake. Look! Still zero seats! Still minor! Still a minor part of a minor party! Still vanity! --Calton | Talk 15:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. There exists an article called Green Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election whose purpose is to pre-empt attempts like this by candidates trying to get a little free advertising. With the 2004 candidates, their article spaces are redirects. If the redirect turns into an article (like this one) it is simply reverted. There does not exist a 2006 version yet. --maclean25 04:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.