Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Smith (politician) (2nd 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 was DELETE. JodyB_talk 11:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Smith (politician) (2nd nomination)[edit]

I previously nominated Smith along with a number of other individuals, whom I was subsequently convinced were of a varying degree of notability. For this reason, I withdrew my group nomination and agreed to relist the non-notable articles individually. Smith is a functionary in a very small (but notable) political party in the UK. While his party is notable and contains notable persons, this notability does not transafer to Smith.

He 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 small group does this.

He is also not a noted union figure nor a noted extra-parliamentary figure. Bigdaddy1981 17:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the elected guideline is intended for a candidate based system like the US. In a party-based system like UK, you can have leaders who are not elected Corpx 19:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but is he notable? You haven't argued that he is. Bigdaddy1981 20:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just going by his article, I think being a "National Secretary" for a national-level party in a pariamentary level system is a notable position, so he should have a page. Corpx 20:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep Keep, if an external source can be found, which does not appear to be certain. DGG
Delete This is not the British Labour Party. This is a tiny far left splinter group which meets in this guys bedroom with his mum making the tea. The Socialist Workers Party doesn't even stand in elections anymore and when it did it was regularly thrashed by the Monster Raving Loony Party. Nick mallory 01:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you have sources for each of those. (not that any of them necessarily apply to possible individual notability) DGG 00:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - really, wikipedia's going to turn into a phone book if pages like this are allowed to stay. Kripto 01:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Holding some office in a political party (especially a very minor one) does not automatically make the holder notable individually - as in this case. Cheers, DWaterson 20:57, 7 July 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.