Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Jacoby-Hawkins


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
This appears to be a new usage of the word "successful". Per http://www.answers.com/topic/results-of-the-canadian-federal-election-2004-ontario his success consisted of coming fourth out of four candidates with 3288 votes; by comparison the winner gained some 21,000. This may be promotion for the upcoming 2006 election at which the gentleman is again a candidate. I'm sure WP wishes him well, but WP:ISNOT a soapbox. Tonywalton | Talk 22:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, should the author accuse me of bias against their candidate, as a resident of London, England, I'm most unlikely to be voting in an Ontario election. Tonywalton | Talk 22:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as only slightly more successful than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, and a good deal less interesting. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the party is notable and has its own article. This gent's slightly less notable than the co-leader of the Official Monster Raving Loonies, a cat called Mandu (d. 2002). Tonywalton | Talk 23:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, out out damn spot. Stifle 10:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - should we remove a bunch of redlinks at Results of the Canadian federal election, 2004: Ontario as well? No vote for the moment, since the article is pretty poor, but there's apparently a lot to delete. Sam Vimes 12:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- We can't delete some candidates, and keep others. Since decisions were made to keep other articles on candidates or potential candidates, this one should also stay, esp. if any of the competing candidates in this riding have articles. Skeezix1000 12:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I change my vote to delete. I just think there should be consistency -- we either delete all of the non-notable candidates, or keep them all, but we shouldn't do a little bit of both.  I got beat up over at Articles for deletion/Michael Swanson for suggesting that we should keep these candidate articles in the interest of balance and fairness, so perhaps we should delete them.  Skeezix1000 13:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - there are candidates and then there are notable candidates and it doesn't take a notable person to get on the ballot and have 4% of the people accidently check the box for your name. Peyna 13:43, 13 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.