Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bickley (UKIP)


 * 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 was Delete as per the specific guidelines for politicians Errant (chat!) 18:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

John Bickley (UKIP)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable enough as yet. A twice-defeated parliamentary candidate with no other notability. If he wins the by-election we can create a page for him then, but not yet. Frinton100 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Having created this article, the intention as always is to enhance Wiki, so slightly surprised such swift attempted suppression of info in relation to Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015. Many more less relevant articles in Wiki, I should suggest. M Mabelina (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bickley clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN as the only coverage he gets is related to him being an election candidate, which is not notable in itself and there do not seem to be any other claims to notability. The creator's argument that there are "many more less relevant articles in Wiki" may well be true, but that's a textbook WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument and is not a reason for keeping this one. Valenciano (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:POLITICIAN, as is standard practice in these cases. If he's elected, an article will be created. Bondegezou (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've only just created the article & spend more time arguing than adding - please reserve judgement before jumping on the bandwagon. HELP! M Mabelina (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is useful material about Mr Bickley, I would suggest you add it to the by-election article page. Standard Wikipedia policy is to cover candidates on the relevant election article until such time as they are notable in their own right. Meanwhile, if you think the article for Jim McMahon (politician) is inappropriate, you are free to propose it for deletion: follow the guidance at WP:AFD. Bondegezou (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per POLITICIAN. Nothing in his business background stands out either. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi - looking forward to something positive to say about such edits - rather than engaging in internal discussions about minutiae - I've recently had the same about the law of arms & it takes ages to convince (because once people openly state their position they generally don't like to back down - please wait a while & take stock rather than jump on the bandwagon - unless of course there is a particular reason not immediately apparent as to why info should be suppressed rather than enhanced... Appreciated M Mabelina (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a repository for political candidates. What you call "suppression" is what we consider maintaining standards. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Cllr Jim McMahon
[COPIED FROM User talk:Frinton100] (view no answer as to poss Labour POV):

Hi Frinton - from an outsider's point of view, perceivably lots of overprotection of Labour candidate & attempts to suppress others? Also if Jim McMahon is notable enough, which I have no doubt in believing, why then try to dumb down his entry by persistent deletion of the OBE image? Please advise - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Other candidates at Oldham by-election
RSVP

I'm not sure what the meaning of the "Attention" section above is - however, with regards to the OBE - I did remove it earlier, but I saw you put it back and I wasn't too bothered. I think it looks a bit silly, but fine. I hadn't realised I had removed it a second time; I have now moved it to a more sensible location. I am dubious to be honest about McMahon's notability under WP:POLITICIAN - municipal politicians are borderline cases. But please, for the third time in a few hours - can we discuss article content in the appropriate place, and not on my talk page. Please stick to the MOS. And please do not post unsolicited images to my talk page. Frinton100 (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure - I think you & I (& of course others) have a reasonable grasp of Wiki eligibility, politics, current affairs as well as the English language. Thank you & let's get back to helpful collaborative edits like before (intro of muchos Talk pages - like committees - never get anything sorted!). Best M Mabelina (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Jim McMahon (politician) Talk Page - please direct It's on the "talk" tab, top left, on his article Frinton100 (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Your link above doesn't work - so let's leave excessive discussion (unless you really would prefer otherwise) in favour of enhancing the content of Wiki's articles. "Attention", I amended to "Other" since it seems to me quite lopsided to focus on Jim McMahon without any attention at all on the others, although I have made a small attempt to redress the balance by creating an article about John Bickley, the principal contender in this former Labour seat (unless I am thoroughly mistaken)! I note you decided to flag up the John Bickley article for deletion almost immediately upon its creation - so unless you can assure me (and, moreover, other Wikipedians) that you ARE NOT a Labour supporter/sympathiser, perhaps you could remove those notices? What was the reason for your stating OBEs look a "bit silly" thereby reducing much Wiki factual info to be joke status unless you were in your eyes disdaining Cllr McMahon himself, OR alternatively dumbing down Cllr Jim McMahon's entry so as to try make him appear less privileged - despite achievement being a good thing - for some presumed electoral advantage? A simple explanation to this mystery will suffice - many thanks in advance.... M Mabelina (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Could we please stick to the matter in hand - i.e. whether Bickley meets the criteria for notability on wikipedia - rather than resorting to personal attacks. I will deal briefly with these on my talk page. Details about McMahon's article should be discussed on his talk page. As mentioned above, if you think he fails the notability criteria then you can deal with it in the appropriate manner. I'm not sure - I think he's borderline.


 * Back to Bickley, wikipedia is not the BBC. We do not have to give equal "airtime" (or perhaps "article inches") to all of the candidates in a by-election, or even to the ones we think are going to finish in the top two. The criteria for notability of politicians is described at WP:POLITICIAN and these make clear that simply being a candidate in a parliamentary election is not noteworthy enough. There is nothing in any other area of his life either that would confer notability at this stage. If he wins on 3rd Dec, of course this will change. Frinton100 (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is useless in its present state. SOXROX (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note This article should be moved to John Bickley (politician), following standard Wikipedia naming conventions. Is it OK for me to move it while an AfD is going on? Bondegezou (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As per WP:EDITATAFD, to avoid confusion, I'll not move the article now. If there is a keep decision, I presume the community will then favour a move as suggested. Bondegezou (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per WP:POLITICIAN. He hasn't done anything notable. He's standing in a by-election, anyone can do that. This is an article about a non-notable person and it should be deleted. Also the title of this article is not in line with Wikipedia's standards. IJA (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think this could just be bias against UKIP, if he was a Lib-Lab-Con candidate he'd definitely have been included by now, he is becoming a senior member of the UKIP party having stood in Heywood and Middleton in the GE and the 2014 by election and also stood in Wythenshawe, we have lots of information about him, and he is becoming a true face of the party in the north. I remember when this listing was previously deleted last year, but now he is standing in Oldham West and Royton, he does deserve a Wikipedia page, as simply he is a senior member of UKIP. (Z2a (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC))
 * I'm sorry but that is a load of absolute bullshit. It seems to me you aren't aware of our policies which states that unelected candidates for office are not notable. Simply being a perennial, unelected candidate or carpetbagger does not equate to notability. Regarding "bias against UKIP" nonsense you allege, in conspiratorial tones, that if Bickley was a "Lib-Lab-Con" candidate (no such party exists, by the way) he would be granted an article. Let us test your theory. Lets see whether unelected candidate for major parties in recent by-elections have articles:

Hopefully you will now admit that UKIP suffers from no "bias" AusLondonder (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Christine Emmett, Conservative, Corby 2012: ❌
 * Jill Hope, Liberal Democrat, Corby 2012: ❌
 * Craig Williams, Conservative, Cardiff South and Penarth 2012: ❌ (Not until election as MP for Cardiff North)
 * Bablin Molik, Liberal Democrats, Cardiff South and Penarth 2012: ❌
 * Luke Nicholas, Plaid Cymru (finished ahead of UKIP), Cardiff South and Penarth 2012: ❌
 * Andrew Stranack, Conservative, Croydon North 2012: ❌
 * Winston McKenzie, UKIP, Croydon North 2012: Ironically ✅ (There go your accusations of an anti-UKIP bias)
 * Michael Payne, Labour, Newark 2014: ❌
 * David Watts, Liberal Democrats, Newark 2014: ❌
 * Roger Helmer, UKIP, Newark 2014: ✅ (Because he is an MEP)
 * Naushabah Khan, Labour, Rochester and Strood 2014: ❌
 * Geoff Juby, Liberal Democrats, Rochester and Strood 2014: ❌
 * Kelly Tolhurst, Conservative, Rochester and Stood 2014: ❌ (Not until she gained the seat at the general election)
 * Comment I note Articles for deletion/Winston McKenzie (2nd nomination) is now up. Might I also remind everyone of the assumption of good faith? Bondegezou (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Firstly, very poor title. Secondly, very poor arguments in favour of keeping from the above editors, whining about bias and "much less relevant" articles existing (if they do, please nominate their removal immediately). Thirdly being a perennial candidate (some less generous souls may say carpetbagger) for election is not a claim to notability, excluding in exceptional circumstances. I could stand in three by-elections. Does that make me notable? AusLondonder (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Another thing, it certainly reads like a promotional piece in its current form. AusLondonder (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Has never been elected into any position of power, nor is he a major idealogue internally in UKIP. Perennial candidates can become notable in cases like Mackenzie, who stood for decades for practically every party. A few candidatures in the last couple of years means nothing &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. We do have articles on politicians who have not been elected, but this is usually because they have achieved some notability (or notoriety) outside of politics or have been significant players within their parties or organisations. This does not apply here - he is just a failed candidate. Emeraude (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

— Duplicate vote: Z2a (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
 * Keep. To add to my last point - Why is Jim Mcmahon worthy of a page and John isn't? Jim has no special relevance more than John other than being the leader of Oldham Council, and as far as I'm aware Council leaders shouldn't automatically get a page on here, if they do, why doesn't Rochdale council leader Richard Farnell have a page? If this page goes, I can't see any reason warranting Jim McMahon, who is simply just a councillor to have a page too. (Z2a (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC))
 * Just to point out that you have "voted" twice. Emeraude (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My view is that Jim McMahon is a borderline case. WP:POLITICIAN states that a municipal politician is not automatically notable but is not not-notable because they are only a municipal politician. McMahon is leader of the Labour group on the LGA and is also an NEC member. In addition to his council leadership, I think that just qualifies him for an article, but only just. Frinton100 (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If anyone thinks Jim McMahon (politician) should be deleted, then the appropriate thing is to go start an AfD for that page. We shouldn't keep this article because that article exists: if that article shouldn't exist, then two wrongs do not make a right. Bondegezou (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete being defeated twice, hating science and loving golf are not signs of notability at all. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete He's no Edwin Scrymgeour yet, although he may yet be at some point.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * keep WP:POLITICIAN is an alternative to GNG, not additional requirements. There are multiple in depth sources about the topic, he meets GNG, and the article should be kept. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a false argument. Every single candidate for every major election receives media coverage. We cannot, nor should we, have a page about them all in a credible encyclopaedia. AusLondonder (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I agree that if the Labour candidate considered to be sufficiently notable then so is John Bickley, especially as the next MP for the constituency will be either one of them. It is not for a very small number of Wikipedia insiders to decide who is "important enough" in the eyes of the general public, Wikipedia is supposed to serve the needs of everybody, not the needs of a minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.214.26 (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If you think the Labour candidate is not notable, you can suggest that article be deleted. Whether we have an article for the Labour candidate (and there was an article for this person before he was ever the candidate) is a separate matter to whether this article should exist. No-one is saying that Bickley's candidacy is not important: it is, and information about him and his candidacy is on the by-election article page. The question is whether the best way to organise Wikipedia is to have a separate page about him as well. We don't usually do that, as explained at WP:NPOL. If you think that approach is wrong, you could go to the Talk page there and put forward your position. Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (prattle)  19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Economist says in an article this week the western world needs to really worry if he is elected because it will start a new era of right wing populist anti immigrant sentiment. I hope he loses but I have a feeling he won't. Irrespective this afd is redundant in my opinion, refs such as this and those in the article mean he passes GNG. Szzuk (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this article ? If so I think it's arguable that is not significant coverage, given the article is about much broader topics. And still, it only relates to his candidacy for one election and candidacy alone is not enough.Frinton100 (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are 2 full paragraphs about him directly in the full article. This isn't arguable - it is in depth coverage in a cast iron reliable and verifiable source. Szzuk (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think two paras is exactly in depth, and the fact remains it is entirely related to his candidacy. Many other candidates have had similar things written about them in the heat of a by-election campaign, but it doesn't confer notability. WP:POLOUTCOMES states "Losing candidates for office below the national level are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated." Bickley does not have such previous notability from anything I can see. Frinton100 (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The WP:NPOL guidelines are really just an application of WP:1E, which is the idea that if a person is notable because of a particular event, then we should have an article on the event, not the person. Bondegezou (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now as he seems unlikely notable and the current article is not convincing of any better. SwisterTwister   talk  07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. If and when he does something notable that provides significant coverage (such as winning the seat or developing a hobby more interesting than "walking", as the article currently indicates), the article can be rewritten. Graham (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete If the only notability is political campaigning, they don't qualify. This applies to all parties and all countries. I can see nothing worthy of an article in this case. Nolan is a border-line case - he definitely passes CSD A7 for significance, but as to notability, I'm not sure. But it is irrelevant anyway, because of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each article stands or falls on its own merits. Peridon (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete; unless I've missed something that's presented here or in the article, everything is news coverage about him. Recreate if someone finds significant coverage in secondary sources, but remember that news reports from the time of an event (including a candidate's standing for election) are primary sources.  Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. its accepted we dont cover him until he wins an election. Personally, I think that wrong--major party candidates for national office should beconsidered notable, or else we're biasing political coverage with an incumbent advantage, but this is not the consensus view here, and I'm not going to oppose it at individual cases when I know there;'s no likelihood of getting anywhere.  DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per standards.AnotherAnonymous (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2015 (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.