Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Ashdown

 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 keep (no consensus). I know I voted here, but since it was a "delete" vote, I don't feel too guilty about closing this as a keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Pete Ashdown
non-notable person Johntex 19:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Certainly a notable person. Andre ( talk ) 19:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Does not appear to meet deletion criteria. Trollderella 20:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I respect anyone who takes on Orrin Hatch, but we should wait until he's elected. Gazpacho 20:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - if he actually gets elected in 2006 then list him, otherwise Wikipedia will have to list EVERYONE that stands for public office, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, so as to not to have perceptable bias. (This is a vote by anonymous user 81.97.114.168 added by andre 20:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC))
 * I have removed the strike-through tags. We don't automatically reject anonymous votes on VfD.  -- Visviva 00:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pete Ashdown is notable for being the founder of XMission, not just politically. Andre ( talk ) 20:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'd say. Shimgray 22:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable enough for me. K1Bond007 22:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Might be notable if he becomes the official Democratic candidate against Hatch. It is not neccesary to defeat Hatch, but he should at least gain the Demacrats' nomination before becoming sufficiently notable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just about notable. Viable candidate for national election with press coverage. Sdedeo 13:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC) . Ah, didn't know that he hadn't won the nomination. Delete, then, for now, thanks Sjakkalle. Sdedeo 13:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, but only until he gets the nomination. As per Sjakkalle. Meelar (talk) 14:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per 81.97.114.168. Nabla 21:32:47, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
 * Keep. I cannot believe this is on VfD. What is that supposed to mean, "Wait until he gets the nomination"? Should we have waited until John Edwards was nominated (or as it turned out, not nominated) to make an article (Yeah, I know this is an amazingly imperfect analogy, but my point is still made at least to that extent). And "Wikipedia will have to list EVERYONE that stands for public office, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, so as to not to have perceptable bias." That is even more ridiculous. For one, United States Senator is not "any public office anywhere in the world." Writing about a candidate for U.S. Senator is not the same about writing about a candidate for Bergen County Freeholder. Please don't make really stupid hyperbolic statements like that one. And because we make one article on bananas doesn't mean that to "be fair" or "not have bias" we have to send osmeone out to make one on every fruit ever at that moment. D. G. 04:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Avoid calling other persons opinions ridiculous, that does not help. To me "Everyone" means "everyone candidating to a similar public office". Is a candidate to be a candidate of the US Senate anyhow more important than a candidate in any national parliament around the world? It doesn't look like so to me. Now, here in Portugal we have 5 major parties, each presenting 230 candidates to the parliament. That's 1150 candidates. If we include minor parties that would easily double, and it would also double if "possible" candidates were included. But let's stick to a nice round 1000 figure. That was Portugal alone. Multiply that for 100 countries with similar institutions and you reach a nice round figure of 100,000 similar candidates around the worls every 4/5 years. Do we want them all? I don't. Nabla 00:09:14, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Based on what is there, there isn't sufficient reason otherwise to keep the article, and I don't know enough about Utah politics to judge whether he even has a chance to get the Democratic nomination or not. Even if he does, being the next Democrat to lose to Senator Hatch hardly seems notable enough to warrant an article. Caerwine 22:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you guys even have any idea what Wikipedia's deletion standards are? Or do you just make it up as you go along based upon what you personally feel like at the moment? D. G. 03:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fairly marginal, but I think he has some degree of notability as a "geek / candidate". Also, unlike most candidates for office, he's clueful enough to use a .org address for his (noncommercial) campaign site, unlike all the marketroid types who inappropriately use .com sites. *Dan* 04:56, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I think Ashdown is notable enough. It's not necessary to have an article on everyone who runs for office anywhere in the world. (This is Lst27)
 * Weak keep, sounds notable on a rather small scale, but notable enough to be kept. - ulayiti (talk)  19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sjakkalle (note, I am the nominator) Johntex 21:54, 23 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.