Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Tadross


 * 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. Homey 00:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

George Tadross
Vanity, unsourced and unverified. Delete Ardenn 03:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Hey everyone. I'm the one who wrote the article. I am not George Tadross and am not affiliated with his campaign. I was intrigued by his website, and I think he is serious in his intentions to run. I've talked with him, and he's sparked some interest in the voting age youth, and is set to be interviewed for 2 university newspapers (Toronto, and Laurier his alma mater). It could spark interest in mainstream media but who knows. As far as Dogbreathcanada and ikkyu2's problem with my writing it early, there certainly has been precedent. Martha Hall Findlay has never been elected into parliamentary office and has never done anything formally political, yet no one is threatening to delete her info, or the info on the Liberal convention page (the stuff I put on Tadross was gone in less than 24 hours). So that's fine if you're going to delete my work, but just be consistent and use your criteria for every politician. I honestly don't think Tadross will win, but I think it's an intriguing story. Findlay won't win either, and her story isn't nearly as interesting. So cut up my article all you want, but do so fairly and don't assume there's "vanity" involved just because he is different than the other candidates.Dfahmy 06:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Martha Hall Findlay has never been elected into parliamentary office and has never done anything formally political"
 * Yes but Findlay's candidacy has been reported in the Toronto Star, no mainstream media has reported Tadross' candidacy - there is nothing to verify it save for a one page website. Homey 06:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Read my comment again. My problem isn't that you wrote the article early, which opinion you misattributed to me; it is that the subject of the article in no way meets WP:BIO.  You should read WP:BIO; maybe you will see a way to make Mr Tadross qualify. Ikkyu2 21:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how, or if, I can delete a site myself, but you're not reading it wrong; I've changed my position. I still stand by the fact that all people making a legitimate run should have their information available on Wikipedia. Newspapers use the same fact checkers as anyone else, and are subject to biases of editors, and the position the newspaper wants to uphold. That's the great thing about Wikipedia. We're not subject to those same biases, and we are able to change or add information to inform others, even before the newspapers get the scoop. However, in this case, George Tadross has taken his site down. So the only source of information is gone, and I can't argue to keep it around anymore. As far as his history about being the "Greatest thing since sliced bread". Although hilarious, I have no idea what it was about. He is a university student after all. Could be one of his friends messing around. That should have no bearing on the legitimacy of what I wrote. Dfahmy 05:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Tricky one, this'n. If he actually files as an official candidate for the leadership race, then he will merit an article whether he's seen as a real contender or not. (I sincerely doubt he would be seen as a contender, but political party leadership candidates merit articles for the fact of being candidates, not for POV assumptions about their chances.) But it's also distinctly possible that he's talking out of his hat, and won't actually file as a candidate when pu$h comes to $hove. And a candidate who's not particularly well-known isn't necessarily going to generate a whole lot of media attention right away, particularly on the weekend when there aren't that many media at work in the first place, so it won't be easily verified until he either does or doesn't actually file nomination papers. If it's deleted and he does file, it'll have to come back; if it's kept and he doesn't, it'll have to be deleted. So personally, I'd suggest that we suspend judgement on it for the time being, and either keep or delete at a later date based on whether anything actually comes of this or not. We can always hide it somewhere as a user subpage if need be. Bearcat 04:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest the article can be re-created if he actually files. Ardenn 04:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Article can be recreated if he files. Does he have a seat in parliament? Has he ever been in parliament? He's done nothing at all politically. This fellow is nn. --Dogbreathcanada 05:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing tricky about it at all; fails WP:BIO by a large margin, and will until he's elected.  I don't agree that he'd merit an article just for filing for candidacy.  We had dozens of candidates for the last California gubernatorial election; almost none of them were notable, either.  Ikkyu2 05:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete StarTrek 06:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dogbreathcanada. Steve Casburn 06:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If Tadross' candidacy hasn't been reported by a credible media source (ie not a blog) by Friday then delete. Homey 07:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems this article was speedy deleted in November 2004 when its content consisted of "George Tadross is a 3rd year business student at Wilfrid Laurier University. He is considered the greatest thing since sliced bread." Homey 07:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete pure vanity--Porturology 07:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If he achieves success or even achieves heavy media coverage, we can have an article on him then. If he achieves a seat in a national or provincial parliament, same applies. He doesn't meet WP:BIO at the moment. Capitalistroadster 19:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - vanity-ad-nn. He is not even a member of parliament or has any political achievements so far, so the fact that he is trying to take over a major party from nowhere seems to show he is a nn-stunt politician. Perhaps, I will do a leadership spill on John Howard and get no votes -can I have a WP entry????Blnguyen 04:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP IT - I SAY KEEP IT BECAUSE HE IS MY FRIEND!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.164.244 (talk • contribs)
 * 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.