Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Smith (politician)

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The result was withdrawn-relist, the nominator can relist separately instead, since each article has a different merit. Sr 13 02:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Smith (politician)[edit]

Subject is clearly not a notable political figure - fails Wikipedia policy for notability for politician which determine that only those politicians "who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." or are "(m)ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. Smith is neither. This guy's never held elected office and is really only known to cognoscenti of the left fringe.

He is also not a noted political philosopher but writes pamphlets for his party and articles in his party's paper. Just about every senior member of this tiny groupuscle does this.

As an aside, I note that there are great number of RESPECT/SWP based biographies added for very very minor fringe party figures - I suspect activists create them. I will be nominating a number of non-notables in concert with this deletion.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of their subjects' total lack of notability (except as party hacks known only within their own political sect):

Bigdaddy1981 04:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't held elected office or been the subject of press interest. Wikipedia doesn't deem minor party officials notable and the S.W.P. doesn't even contest elections anymore. Nick mallory 04:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep has quite a few webhits. Appears to be notable in the socialist circles.Balloonman 04:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few webhits don't constitute notability by establised Wikipedia standards for politicians. He's never held office and he lacks the 'significant press coverage' necessary for inclusion. Mentions in the walled garden of far left British websites doesn't pass the bar. Nick mallory 05:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Widgery, Challinor, and Barker, who may bear further investigation as authors. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List separately they are not all equal and need to be considered separately--and I would say this of all similar deletions. Martin Smith is the national secretary of a minority party, & I would be prepared to argue that he is notable, as is the head of any other political movement party of "sect" no matter how small (national secretary is almost always the effectual head of the group) . Any other way of looking at it is a POV-laden attempt to eliminate all coverage of such parties. Molyneux is a Senior Lecturer with publications. Dhatung suggests that three more may need consideration as authors. The combined (or for that matter group) nomination of a group of people of the same political persuasion always strikes me as a POV hazard.

DGG 01:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to list them separately, I did this as a group to save time as there are a large number of stubs for SWP/RESPECT figures that are largely unsourced with simply a laundry list of mostly party publications they have authored. As for your hysterical claim that "Any other way of looking at it is a POV-laden attempt to eliminate all coverage of such parties" ... well that's rather silly - SWP founder Tony Cliff (a notable figure, btw) has a large entry and I haven't suggested him, nor Lindsey German, Chris Bambery or John Rees or Chris Harman.... o and then there's Chris Nineham also ... o and Alex Callinicos. Keep things in perspective and leave the innuendos alone. Bigdaddy1981 03:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, what's with Jim Rose? I cant even find him in the deletion log.DGG 01:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a mistype for John Rose (UK politician). Warofdreams talk 02:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally List separately; if we are to pursue this, then keep Higgins, Widgery and Challinor are all authors of significant works; delete Hayes, who doesn't seem to have done anything notable. No opinion on the others. Warofdreams talk 02:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment forgot to mention some of the language used in the nom: "party hacks" -- "sect" -- "cognoscenti of the left fringe" -- "tiny groupuscle" -- this sort of supports my feeling that there's POV involved.DGG 02:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to offend you but people who are organizers and central committee members and are largely unknown to outsiders can be described, imo, as hacks - maybe my language is indelicate but I don't think its unfair. Moreover, the SWP is a fringe party - I doubt even its members would deny that, it's also a tiny party - maybe not by far left standards but certainly by mainstream UK party standards. So I think that my comments are not too unfair. As an aside, I'm rather suspicious of your POV given your unwillingness to show the nominated individuals' notability and focus on my alleged POV. Bigdaddy1981 03:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My POV--My "POV," as is even stated on my user page, is that I support articles on small political parties and small religions, because I think that they can be overshadowed, that I think minority views often are the prelude to general acceptance and are of importance to society, and that the only sure way to avoid bias is include them all. Remember, I'm a guy who's been supporting articles for losing Republican or Democratic candidates for Congress. If you want to know the way I actually vote, you're welcome to email me as a friend, but I expect you to hold it in confidence. If I had a particular POV towards this party, I'd know more about them than I do. Frankly, I have never heard of a single one of these people, but that's because I do not follow British politics. Perhaps that's why I think I can judge, going on the information presented here, not my personal knowledge. I've never heard of 90% of the significant figures with articles in WP. That's why we need these articles--to provide information for people like me. My knowledge of even British politics is improving by the article. DGG 01:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep all as major comtributors to Trot theory and, more importantly, practice - both in UK and internationally. As a non-member of the SWP, it does seem strange to me that a nominator has managed to lump together a whole bunck of IS/SWP members and ex-members and one must supect a POV motive, despite comments above. Emeraude 22:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment care to list their contributions to Trotskyite theory? Far as I knew Callinicos was their theorist. As for "managing" to lump SWP members - I openly admit I lumped them together by design - they are all imo non-notable SWP members. As for "managing" to identify them, that's not too hard given that there's a wikipedia category for SWP members. I decided to do this AFD given the huge number of SWP stubs. I again note that no one has bothered to actually state why the candidates are notable and instead try to impeach my alleged POV. Great debate chaps. Bigdaddy1981 23:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun fleshing out the article on Widgery; he has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, who certainly don't believe he is non-notable. This is the great problem with bundling all these names together; some may well not be notable, but others are, and all they have in common is a party affiliation. Warofdreams talk 00:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to list them seperately and indeed - if some are in fact notable - not list them at all. I am relatively new to wikipedia - what is the process for unbundling an AFD? I'd be glad of advice to that affect. Its a shame that the POV debate has to be started - I have edited other articles and made other AFDs - all in good faith. I am not a member of any UK party and indeed no longer live in the UK. I do; however, have an armchair interest in UK politics and socialism. Bigdaddy1981 01:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a general process for unbundling an AfD. I'd recommend closing this as withdrawn, then opening new AfDs on whichever articles you still feel should qualify for deletion. It would probably also be ideal to notify people who have commented as to the new nominations, to ensure that they are aware of the need to comment again. Warofdreams talk 02:13, 14 June 2007 (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.