Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Wrack

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.--Wizardman 03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Wrack[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. Wrack is neither. As an aside, I note that there are great number of RESPECT based biographies added for very very minor fringe party figures. This guys never held elected office and is really only known to cognoscenti of the left fringe. Delete Bigdaddy1981 01:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never held elected office. Nick mallory 03:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are some other points of notability in the article, but without references they don't carry much weight. Yechiel Man 07:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a little absurd to judge those who are truly of the "left fringe" as if holding electoral office mattered to their notability--by that standards absolutely all UK and especially US leftists of the last 50 years are so wouldnt be in WP, & ditto of at least the very furtherest right, and we would have politicians from the major parties only. It's about the same as keeping in only such revolutionaries who succeed/ They are judged in their genre among other leftists. Their profession is politics, but not electoral politics (at least not for this particular party). There have been similar attempts to remove all Greens. DGG 02:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On what grounds is he notable? I notice that you offer none. Is he a notable political theorist? If so let's see some evidence. Has he led extra-parliamentry movements? Has he written notable books? Has he enjoyed press coverage? The answer to all of these is no - yet you insist he is notable. Bigdaddy1981 16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has all the notability of every barrister in the UK, which is to say "not much."
Weak Keep I think. Repect is a very minor polictical party (see comments on Linda Smith above). Wrack does have the distinction of having held various offices in a series extreme left-wing British politcial parties, ones who do a lot of campaigning and rarely even get electred to local councils, but the article does show slight notability. Peterkingiron 22:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Come on, where's the juicy scandal? He'd be interesting if he spied for the Soviets.--Mike18xx 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - he has been a "registered leader", a "chair", and an "editor". Those are in his favour. The Trotskyite bit I like, we need more articles on those, and Militant Tendency is a cool name. But I am voting delete under the assumption that while being a "registered leader" and a "chair" could be notable in England, he's still a living person with no independent secondary sources cited. If some sources could please be added by someone during this AfD, my delete vote may then be ignored. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:51, 19 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.