Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zane Carpenter


 * 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. consensus that he fails WP:N/and/or WP:POLITICIAN JForget  22:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Zane Carpenter

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Anonymous political figure in a vanishingly small party. Recently created by a editor who admits that he is a member of said party. Same editor silently removed my prod tag, so here we are Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC) I removed the POLITICIAN tag as it didn't meet the criteria, sorry about that. Troublemaker1949 (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am slowly but surely adding references to the said article. It's up to the standard of very many other pieces on Wikipedia. So, here we are! Troublemaker1949 (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't even come close to meeting WP:POLITICIAN and general notability standards - coverage is trivial at best. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 self published sources, a mocking mention in a light hearted piece and then a statement that he did, in fact, stand for election. This is as trivial as it gets in my view. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I've removed the offending tag and anyway, references to "vanishingly small" are so subjective. Have you looked at the British communist movement recently?Troublemaker1949 (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * True -- there are lots of parties that are as small or smaller (although the CPB has 900 and the SWP possibly even more). I doubt Brar would claim more than 30. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What's your source for this pearl of wisdom? Troublemaker1949 (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Im being generous -- the only documented evidence is that there are three per Brar's submissions to the UK electoral authorities. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There's so little about British communists who are active today that this piece is rather welcome. However, it's a bit sparse so I'd like to see more information added, but, nevertheless, keep it. PhillyDelphia (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC) — PhillyDelphia (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That seems a thin reason for keeping. See [|Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions]. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside -- there are plenty of (in my view) quite notable figures from the communist left in the UK with no (Sid French, Mick Costello) or very poor articles (Monty Goldman). You might create on of those or ginger up an existing one(!). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside, you seem to be such an expert, so why don't you get on with creating those articles or adding to the already existing ones rather than acting as some petty censor and rubbing out ones you don't like!Troublemaker1949 (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Definitely not a notable political figure. Only two blog posts even mention him, and no news or book sources except that aside in an FT blog. p.s. As for getting 151 votes as a Socialist Labour Party candidate in Birmingham in a general election, I got more votes than that as a paper candidate in a local council election. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  — Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Few articles about communists? Tough luck. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I might also point out that if Zane Carpenter was instead a member of a mainstream party, he would still fail notability miserably. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep well references now. Meets notability standards. Ikip (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 self published sources (you do realise Lalkar is self-published right), 1 blog, a mocking mention in a light hearted piece and then a statement that he did, in fact, stand for election -- this is well-referenced?! Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is NOT a majority vote, it doesn't count anyway, so it's pretty pointless to do this. Troublemaker1949 (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Oh my, is not that not allowed, so sorry. Troublemaker1949 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that, by now even the most biased among us would have to concede that it's fairly well-referenced. So here we are. Troublemaker1949 (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the General Notability Guideline?? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I have struck the duplicate vote. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep*Keep*Keep*Keep*Keep*Keep Are you going to strike these too? Troublemaker1949 (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * *Sigh*. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: In the interests of disclosure, User:Troublemaker1949 is the creator the article and states that he is a member of the party with which Zane is associated. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The man isn't notable. The most promising references (ie from the BBC and the Guardian newspaper) turn out to only say how many votes he got in the election he stood for. Which was 151 - hardly an indication of notability. The other most promising one, the Washington Post is a one-paragraph mention which fails the multiple, non-trivial standard we require. Like Chris Neville-Smith points out, it doesn't matter whether we agree with his politics or not, he's not notable enough to be in a credible encyclopedia. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoever said Wikipedia was a "credible" encyclopedia?Troublemaker1949 (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't think Wikipedia is a credible encyclopaedia, why do you want an article on Zane Carpenter so badly in the first place? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Troublemaker1949, we are trying to build a credible encyclopedia, which is why we have AfD discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 23:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've raised Troublemaker1949s behaviout here: Wikiquette alerts G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 16:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, Per nom and reasons mentioned above.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI: Google news: 12, Google books: 7, Google scholar: 0Ikip (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is someone else by that name. Only getting a hundred or so votes, out of millions of voters, doesn't make someone notable.  The news stories covering him are mostly mentioning nude cyclists and others.  Do the books cover him, or the guy he was named after?   D r e a m Focus  14:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nom and DreamFocus, this guy doesn't meet our notability criteria. Verbal chat  16:11, 6 September 2009 (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.