Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Biocchi

 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 to delete. Rhobite 06:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dan Biocchi
Are members of the Green Party of Canada who have two children from two seperate mothers inherently notworthy? If not, how is notability currently being illustrated in this article? GRider\talk 19:50, 21 Feb 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.
 * Delete. A bio of elements of his personal life. Apparently hasn't even been elected to anything. Has he even run? Zero content. -R. fiend 20:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, he got 2,699 votes in the 2004 Canadian election. - SimonP 21:12, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * ...and came in 4th out of 4 people, with less than half the votes that the #3 guy got. Lots of elections have minor candidates, who run as a political exercise instead of a serious attempt to win.  They don't all need articles. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  21:30, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Running for what? Parliament? So we're going to have a page on every person who's ever run for any office? <3000 votes isn't a hell of a lot anyway. Clearly not notable. -R. fiend 21:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Do we not have bios for everyone who has run for President of the US or Congress? --Spinboy 21:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure we don't, actually. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 21:30, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * President, yes (or at least probably), Congress? You've got to be kidding, right? We're not even close to having biographies for everyone who's ever been elected to Congress, much less run for it. Running for an office and losing (especially being 4th out of 4) is about as unremarkable as it gets. And have you read the article? It reads like high school vanity. -R. fiend 21:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't have articles for everyone who's ever run for Congress, and running for President is a false analogy which sets no valid precedent here. Bearcat 06:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Actually, winning 2699 as a Green is notable, but the article should be expanded to say that, and identify where he ran, what % of the vote he got and how far behind the big three candidates he was. Kevintoronto 21:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think that people that belong to a political party and have run for some kind of office and failed are notable enough for wikipedia--nixie 22:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable enough. cannot have a page on every candidate running for every office. kaal 23:17, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 23:52, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Megan, but are you voting to keep a guy who once ran for Canadian Parliament, placing 4th out of 4, while voting to delete Adrian John Flook, and actual member of British Parliament? I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from here. -R. fiend 05:18, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I agree... that does seem a bit strange. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 22:06, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, according to the link he was an Olympic athlete. Kappa 02:49, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep 2,699 votes warrants notability in my books. Earl Andrew 06:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't (and won't) subscribe to the notion that Wikipedia should have an article on every single person who's ever run for any political office whatsoever. I can support minor candidates when they (a) got a significant amount of media attention, (b) are already notable for other reasons and their losing political campaign is just an extra fact about them, (c) are leaders of minor parties, or (d) are notable specifically as perennial candidates. This guy fits under (b), as Kappa notes, so keep, but make sure the article notes his Olympic history. Bearcat 06:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Bearcat, those are good criteria. Radiant! 09:08, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. All candidates for public office are notable.--Centauri 12:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Not all candidates for public office are automatically notable. Bearcat's criteria are a good start.  2) Not all athletes, even Olympic athletes, are automatically notable.  Here is the description of his Olympic career .  Biocchi was also a part of the Canadian contingent competing at the 1976 Montreal Olympics. He was one leg of the Canadian 4x100 metre relay team that finished eighth.  Politely, delete.  By the way, my dentist was an Olympic figure skater for Czechoslovakia.  He has great stories but he's not encyclopedic either.  Rossami (talk) 23:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The idea that all candidates for office are notable is completely absurd. To carry out this idea to its logical conclusion, we'd have to include anyone (living or dead) who has ever been a candidate for any public office at any level in any country. I think the number of people who fit that criteria would be slightly higher than the number of Pokemon. Carrp | Talk 23:53, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable enough. ComCat 08:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: He can come back when he's famous. Giano 15:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not everyone soundly trounced in a Canadian election is notable. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 18:54, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep--ZayZayEM 01:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. He was an also-ran in the election, and an also-ran at the Olympics.  Neither one is notable.  -- James Teterenko (talk) 05:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)