Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Woodcock

 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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Tom Woodcock
Only claim to fame is as one of thousands of candidates in the last UK general election. Wikipedia is not a directory of PPCs. Timrollpickering 20:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete minor losing candidates --TimPope 21:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. 1.1% of the vote. Created three days before the election too. Flowerparty  talk 21:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete losing is easy. Done it myself. -Splash 22:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - perhaps merging into a 'minor candidates in' page. Trollderella 01:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsuccessful minor party candidate for office and not apparently notable for other reasons. Capitalistroadster 01:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dottore So 02:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep RESPECT unfortunately elected an MP in the last election, so it clearly is a notable party, unless you can point me to some Wikipedia policy guidelines over what constitutes political notability, I would say keep it as being the MP candidate of a notable party seems notable enough to warrant mention. Caerwine 13:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Were we discussing RESPECT The Unity Coalition, our article on that political party, your argument about the party being notable would apply. However, we are not.  We are discussing a candidate for office who is simply a member of that party, and moreover a candidate that both didn't win (by a massive margin) and that is not infamous for losing spectacularly (as some candidates are).  Notability is not inheritable from a political party by all of its individual members; and your argument about the party being notable is thus inapplicable.  A person who has done nothing else to satisfy the criteria for inclusion of biographies (as this person has not) has to have won the election to national/state/provincial office that xe has stood for.  Delete. Uncle G 14:27:56, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Uncle G--the notability of the party is clearly an issue. Both Caerwine and I believe that major party candidates should be kept; therefore, the notability of RESPECT is clearly a factor, at least in our votes. I, however, come down on the opposite side of Caerwine. Electing one member of Parliament does not make you a notable party. If they achieve more significant success over a longer period, then their candidates can get articles--until then, they remain (in my eyes) a minor party. Delete. Meelar (talk) 14:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * The notability of the party is irrelevant. Candidates (that don't satisfy the criteria for inclusion of biographies in any other ways) don't get articles unless they actually win the elections.  This is long established here, and is also clearly laid out in the criteria for inclusion of biographies themselves.  There are millions of candidates for office around the world, and neither winning nor having any other criterion whatsoever going for you, is where by consensus we have consistently drawn the line. Uncle G 15:41:04, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
 * Then by that reasoning, would you support reopening the VFD on Antonia Bance? Except for the fact the she stood for the Labour Party and Mr. Woodcock stood for RESPECT, I see no difference between the two cases. Caerwine 16:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That should have been deleted - the only people who voted keep knew her personally. Secretlondon 04:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia generally, and VFD specifically, does not have to be strictly consistent. There is no such thing as a precedent. David | Talk 19:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete totally and utterly NN. David | Talk 14:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all losing candidates, if they have done nothing else, regardless of party. Secretlondon 04:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Cambridge and add small summary about him, if neccessary. (if there is no consensus to redirect, delete) -- Joolz 10:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete failed candidates unless something else makes them notable. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 14:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as the other listed PPCs. -R. fiend 14:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn loser.  Grue  19:51, 18 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.