Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Baird (second nomination)

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 no consensus. bainer (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Baird

Delete Attempted speedy, user deleted it. Article looks like a vanity article, there is no claim to noteability, being a failed election candidate does not entitle one to an article pm_shef 05:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Casper2k3 06:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election as per other defeated candidates. Luigizanasi 06:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• The user who removed the speedy tag was me, and the reason I did so was because an article that survived AfD unchanged is surely not a speedy candidate. I have no opinion on whether or not it should be deleted, mind. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 07:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Stood, came third. Isn't, therefore, sufficiently notable. Average Earthman 09:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Luigizanasi --Ed (Edgar181) 10:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Baird. --Rob 10:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Thivierr. See parallel debate on Niki Ashton here] OoskMR 11:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ought to have been deleted the first time. Even less reason to keep it now. Skeezix1000 11:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge The equivalent of a candidate for a seat in the US House of Representatives. If otherwise non-notable people can get an article by losing an election, we have 230 years worth of failed US candidates to add. Thatcher131 11:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia already has dozens of articles on people who didn't even successfully win their own party's nomination for Congressional elections. Bearcat 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, he is even less notable than Niki Ashton. -- Kjkolb 12:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. At least Niki Ashton wasn't this colorless. RGTraynor 16:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Preferably keep, otherwise merge. Samaritan 23:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• While I realize that not everybody agrees on the notability of unelected political candidates, the precedent has already been set that federal candidates are entitled at least to inclusion in a merged list. Either keep (though boy howdy, does it ever need cleanup) or merge into Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election; precedent already excludes outright deletion as an option. Bearcat 00:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Please do not keep. Commons has 308 seats. US House has 435. Conservatives, Liberals, NDPs, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and independents add up to a lot of losing candidates. A huge number lost the only election of their lives, and will go back to obscurity. Unless an individual has other notability, or made the campaign notable in some way, they should not have permanent articles. Fan1967 01:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; major party candidate for federal office makes the cut for notability. MCB 05:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not notable. --MaNeMeBasat 15:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete NN Pete.Hurd 19:00, 16 April 2006 (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.