Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter V. Tretter

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. -- King of Hearts ^talk 03:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article, but in hindsight (which is often 20/20) it isn't particularly notable or important. Delete Ardenn 03:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, real candidate in an election. Where ^(talk) 03:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being a candidate in an election doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 04:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jamie. JoshuaZ 05:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jamie. --Khoikhoi 06:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Where. Arbusto 06:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The relevant criterion under WP:BIO are "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature" or "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage." He satisfies neither. JoshuaZ 06:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jamie (and kudos to Ardenn). Joe 06:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Vote Pending: If was a candidate for a notable state or federal, or major local position, I'd say keep. If not I'd say delete ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, the position is absolutely notable: Member of Provincial Parliament is the only elected provincial office in Ontario, and from their number come the Premier, Cabinet, Speaker, opposition leaders, etc. The precedent is absolutely clear that candidates for such offices can be included, at the very least in merged lists for X party candidates in 20YY. The trouble is this is a by-election, or special election: is it worth ganging him together with his party's two other candidates in by-elections elsewhere in Ontario (far away) on the same day? Keep; merge/redirect into such an article if the consensus really thinks that's the best idea. Samaritan 07:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Today is the 25th of March 2006. The by election in which he is running is to be held on 30th of March 2006. If you have to be an elected MP or whatever the local term may be to be notable, we cant possibly tell right now whether he's notable or not. For all we know, if we delete this now, we may very well have to recreate it in five days time. Shouldnt the AfD wait/have waited until then? Jcuk 09:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is it possible to keep this AfD open for an extra few days? JoshuaZ 16:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jamie. --Terence Ong 11:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, campaign is notable current event; if we only give the officeholder an article we might have an NPOV issue. ProhibitOnions 13:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Candidacy in most elections, certainly including provincial by-elections, does not in itself carry any notability, as it is an opportunity open to anyone in a democracy and there are plenty of "vanity" and single-issue candidates out there. Other sources of this candidates importance must be provided per WP:BIO. Articles about nn topics cannot be justified simply to "balance things up", individual topics must be individually notable. Deizio 18:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Where. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Now or after the election when he gets stomped. Sorry to be guilty of crystal-ballism, but how notable is he in a riding where a Green Party candidate has never finished higher than fourth place? [1] - Fan1967 16:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn minor party candidate. Pick Fan1967's jaw up off the floor and recreate if he gets elected. Brief mention in the winning candidates article will be fine otherwise. Deizio 18:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. I'm willing to take that risk. A few minutes browsing the Ottawa press shows that his candidacy is barely being noticed there. Generally, candidates are not notable until they win, or lose in a notable fashion. Rarely, high-profile candidates in a high-profile election are notable, but this case involves neither. Fan1967 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I did nominate this on afd, I have to disagree with you in this respect. He was on the front cover of the city section of Friday's Ottawa Citizen [2] along with being mentioned in the Nepean Weekender, Nepean this Week, and Barrhaven Independent.[3] Ardenn 22:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that Citizen article is a good example of what I meant. Even the NDP candidate gets three paragraphs. Tretter barely gets a mention at the end. Fan1967 23:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's very true, but the photo in the actual print edition has all 4. Ardenn 00:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep you know who Sam Hundal is? I thought so. Someone out there may want information on this candidate; I don't see why they shouldn't it from here. --Jay(Reply) 22:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The keep part per Where, the weak part because the article's creator doesn't find it notable. Nonetheless, I think the topic certainly meets WP:BIO. AmiDaniel (Talk) 00:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At least he's done something, unlike Lukás of Bulgaria listed below, a kid who not only hasn't done anythig noteworthy but isn't even known by the name under which his Wikipedia article appears. Gene Nygaard 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until the end of the election, then, if he wins or becomes a notable loser, keep permanently. --Midnighttonight 07:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, the normal AfD period should do that. If he wins, someone can note it here and in the article. Fan1967 16:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The election is on Thursday. Ardenn 16:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article can always be recreated if he wins. Fan1967 16:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering that the existing practice for byelections is to discuss them in the article on the preceding general election rather than separate articles, there would also be the option of merging this into the 2003 Green candidates list. Maybe not the best option, but I offer it for discussion. At any rate, I'd favour merging this somewhere if possible, but keep if there isn't a viable merge option. The consensus has tended to favour permitting some kind of coverage of electoral candidates. Bearcat 19:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If you delete this article, you'd better go through all the other campaign articles and delete the pages for "marginal" candidates that lost - like Natural Law party, which is way more marginal than this one. BTW, the national Green party fielded candidates in every riding across Canada - to me that makes the Green Party influential and notable. Furthermore, the Green Party aims to have serious political effects and is succeeding - the other parties are picking up planks out of the Green Party platform - unlike the situation with those other marginal parties.

Comment Fielding candidates in open democracies like the US and Canada is so easy that I hesitate to label someone as notable just because they were on the ballot. There are two candidates in this race who are even more obscure than Tretter (for a total of six on the ballot), though one of them seems to hold some sort of record for number of elections lost, which might be a claim to fame. In the US, the Libertarians routinely field candidates in most congressional districts. I wouldn't describe them as notable. Fan1967 19:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.