Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Christopher Dundas

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Charles Christopher Dundas

 * I'm just finishing the nomination. No vote from me. ~⌈Markaci''⌋ 2005-08-16 T 03:50:20 Z

This seems non-encyclopaedic. An unsuccessful election candidate who is not even currently a PPC. Matthew Platts 22:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - Many other past failed candidates do not have pages as non notable. Timrollpickering 22:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Spare as the article states, he might become a candidate again soon enough. I bet that the timing of Matthew Platts to suggest the deletion of this article is politically motivated. It has been here months, and the General Election were in May. Why does he react now? Coincidence?--213.243.155.245 22:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Note vote above cast by non-logged in user.
 * The English Wikipedia alone has 673,035 pages at the last count. A lot of VFD pages survive for months on end before people notice them and bring them to attention here. Timrollpickering 22:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Um. I think you'll find that I've nominated several non-notable Conservatives (eg. Greg Smith (politician), Annesley Abercorn for VfD too. I am a supporter of liberalism generally. But I am a passionate believer in keeping wikipedia from being a political amen corner. Matthew Platts 22:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And why is it that you woke up NOW to delete this particular article? There are tens orperhaps even hundreds of articles about unsuccessful election candidate, but you woke up to suggest the deletion of this particular one just NOW, when the seat where he stood and might stood again was vacated. I know that can't be a coinsidence. You know, that if he will be selected as a candidate, this article could be justifiably recreated even in the case it would now be deleted, thus your motives to suggest that it should be deleted NOW look rather suspicious.
 * If it means that much to you, if he's selected I will personally go out and leaflet for him. But honestly - nobody is going to vote for him because they've seen him on wikipedia. It is of no significance anywhere outside wikipedia. I'm not framing him for murder, I'm nominating him for VfD. Matthew Platts 22:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You would? A promise? The poimt isn't whether somebody will vote for him or not becaus he is in Wikipedia, but there is no rational reason to spare this article till now, and delete it NOW when it is topical again. Well, how about these two articles, maybe you aren't willing to delete them because these people don't have the chance to become candidates soon enough; Jody Dunn, Peter Hirst.
 * Wikipedia is not a directory of PPCs. I have added VfDs to Jody Dunn and Peter Hirst, which neatly illustrates two things. Firstly that there is nothing peculiar, subversive, or conspiratorial going on here. Secondly that you are not going to gain anything by trying to call my bluff, as I don't have one. Oh, and do you not think it may be civil to sign your posts? Anonymity isn't prohibited but it doesn't add to your credibility. Matthew Platts 17:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have my reasons to remain anomymous, and I'm not going to tell you, what they are. And you didn't illustrate anything. These are all Liberal Democrat PPCs, maybe it isn't a problem to you to VfD any of the Lib Dem articles. Maybe it would be different, if it was a Labour or a Conservative PPC.
 * If you don't sign in then how can we know all edits are coming from the same person? And care to cite a series of non-notable Conservative or Labour PPCs and there will be a race by everyone on this page to nominate them for VFD. Timrollpickering 18:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Why should you know all edits are coming from the same person? I don't want to register. Only which I could find for now was Maggie Jones.
 * Following your comments on my talk page I have now listed for VfD: Michael Tarrant, Helene Davies, Jim Killock, Tom Lines and Tom Woodcock. Timrollpickering 21:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have already pointed out that I've added several Conservatives to VfD. If you want to discuss this further feel free to use my talk page. Matthew Platts 17:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being a candidate is not notable in itself. David | Talk 22:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You must be notable to get listed? I thought that ifan article could interest or benefit people, like in this case voters in Livinston who are searching information about the potential candidates, that would be a reason good enough.
 * Please read our criteria for inclusion of biographies. People who are searching for knowledge about this person (note that an encyclopaedia contains knowledge, not information) will not find it.  The article contains nothing apart from election result statistics and unsourced speculation that for all we know was simply made up by the anonymous editor writing the article.  All bar one of the external links are autobiographies (in fact the same autobiography), and therefore are as suspect as all autobiographies are.  And the one that isn't an autobiography, but is a biography given by a third-party source, is empty.  There is nothing for an encyclopaedia article about this person to contain. Uncle G 17:02:58, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, you have to be notable to get listed, I'm afraid. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or an election guide. Sorry, friend. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless further evidence of notability can be provided. Capitalistroadster 06:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable non candidate. If he does run in the by-election then he should probably be mentioned in an article on that, as it is bound to attract significant media attention. the wub  "?/!"  10:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep--he has been a candidate in the past, whether or not he will be again. Major party candidates are notable. Meelar (talk) 14:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. The size of the party is irrelevant.  Politicians who have won elections satisfy the criteria for inclusion of biographies.  Politicians who have never won elections have to satisfy those criteria on the grounds of being widely infamous (such as being widely infamous for losing repeatedly and with flair, for example).  This person has neither won an election nor gained any widespread notoriety as a politician.  Delete. Uncle G 17:02:58, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most un-elected politicians aren't notable. If he runs again, mention it in the by-election article.--Scimitar parley 16:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as Meelar says, major party candidates are notable. Kappa 17:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No they aren't. See the first and second of the criteria for inclusion of biographies.  A politician has to either be elected or be significantly newsworthy in xyr field.  This person is neither.  Also note that there are no sources of information about this person other than his own autobiography, which is as suspect as all autobiographies are.  The third-party biography, listed last in the external links section, is empty. A Google Search turns up more repetitions of the same autobiography and other people named Charles Dundas. This article has no hope of expansion into being an encyclopaedia article, because there are no reliable third-party sources to use to expand it. Uncle G 17:02:58, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
 * Delete 3rd place cannon fodder. --TimPope 17:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rubbish. Dottore So 19:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, anyone can lose an election, and by definition, most candidates do. -Splash 19:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: not notable. CDThieme 20:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep seems genuine, and is not doing any harm. Trollderella 01:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Harmless. (Though speculation on future political activity probably doesn't belong.) Peter Grey 15:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a directory of people, no matter how "harmless" their articles may be. An article on me would be "harmless", but that wouldn't qualify it for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 17:02:58, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if he runs again he'll still be a non-notable PPC. (This goes for all parties). Secretlondon 05:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete failed candidates unless something else makes them notable. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 14:29, 18 August 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.