Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Janzen


 * 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 since all recent votes are deletes and it's time to be done with 2005, I'm closing this as a delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Scott Janzen
A Google search for "Scott Janzen" and Green Party produces 37 hits. Future candidate for a small district. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C)  07:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC) ''Note: relisting 31 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - He can get his article if and when he is elected. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  15:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Green Party candidates, 39th Canadian federal election in accordance with existing practice. -- Mwalcoff 00:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Add profile. In reference to Dalbury's comment, there are currently 0 elected Green Party members of Parliament.  Unfair to remove a Green Party candidate just because he is not elected.
 * Comment Notability (people), which is a guideline, states that biographies on political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature and major local political figures who receive significant press coverage are approrpiate for Wikipedia. My interpretation of that is that candidates who have not been elected to at least statewide/provincewide office, and have not received significant press coverage (i.e., more than the usual campaign coverage) should be covered in the articles for their parties, instead of in their own articles. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  22:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The policy of excluding candidates for political office that have not previously held an elected position is biased only to the incumbent in any particular election race. The intent of wikipedia is not to influence an election outcome, one way or the other, but to provide information on all candidates running in an election.  Irrespective of their past or current fame, all candidates should have the opportunity provide their information to the web audience through wikipedia in addition to their politcal parties website. 22:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.214.195 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Please point me to where it says that the intent of wikipedia is not to influence an election outcome, one way or the other, but to provide information on all candidates running in an election. Wikipedia is not a news organization, it is an encyclopedia. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  00:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is as yet no Wikipedia policy on the inclusion of nonincumbent candidates for office. A proposal is under discussion at Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. I think it would be best to move all discussion there. -- Mwalcoff 04:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That is wrong. For a long time, consensus has been that candidates for office must already satisfy the WP:BIO criteria in some way.  Uncle G 19:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The discussions regarding this issue have been going on for a month now, and no one has mentioned that there was a preexisting policy on the matter. If you believe there should be a policy on candidates for office, please join the discussion at Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates.
 * The discussion was started in an attempt to change the consensus, which has existed for a long time now. Uncle G 04:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never seen such a policy, and as I said, no one has mentioned one in the month or so the discussion has been going on. -- Mwalcoff 12:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then not only have you not read Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates (Hint: Read what you wrote above and then actually read the talk page.) you have not even read Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, where it is clearly explained that the discussion is an attempt to change the consensus. Uncle G 17:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but I wrote Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. There was no policy on candidates before I proposed one on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). WP:BIO does not claim to be a list of all the types of articles who are eligible for articles ("This list is not all-inclusive"). After AFD battles over some people, I felt it would be a good idea to propose a policy on what candidates should be included. After some disagreement on the WP:BIO talk page, we agreed to create a centralized discussion, which is where this exchange should be taking place. -- Mwalcoff 18:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.  It is not a free wiki host for the posting of candidates' summaries.  The "bias" (which is non-political in nature) is towards candidates that have already satisfied the criteria for inclusion, no more and no less.  It is not a bias "towards the incumbent", as our articles on Screaming Lord Sutch and Ross Perot (who were never incumbents, but who satisfy the WP:BIO criteria nonetheless) attest. Uncle G 19:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - no notability cited beyond being a (not yet elected) candidate in an election. (As a comment: The article reads like a campaign promo and not a bio.) --GrantNeufeld
 * To help out other admins closing AFDs, delete. Being a mere candidate for public office, unless major publicity is attracted, just doesn't make the cut for notability, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there's a damn good reason not to. &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  09:51, Jan. 9, 2006
 * Note: I've redacted it and formatted it so it should be a (more) neutral articel. 68.39.174.238 10:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per previous delete arguments. Rd232 talk 10:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)