Wikipedia talk:Notability (politicians)/failed

message: Not exactly, but it does seem unlikely to ever reach a consensus in its present form; plus the discussions over WP:ATT and other reconfiguration of policies means that this issue ought to be discussed elsewhere. Αργυριου (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed proposal

message: The first two comments here were copied by User:Argyriou from comments made at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Notability (politicians)
::Thanks for the obvious time and effort you have put into this proposal, however I feel that this proposal is too prescriptive.  My belief is that if a politician or elected official can meet other notability guidleines then they should be included.  My preference would be remove entirely Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.  
::IMHO the requirements for notability of political figures is covered both in the central criteria and the very first guideline on public interest -ie. the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field
::Due to this I would like to see the guideline on politicians entirely removed. - Parasite 22:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Far too prescriptive. For a start, it would mean most British MPs are not inherently notable (since their constituencies are generally too small) and no members of the House of Lords (who do not represent contituencies) are inherently notable unless they are Secretaries of State or Law Lords. -- Necrothesp 23:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, yes, I think any member of a major national legislature like the UK Parliament is inherently notable and should have an article. People are interested in them. -- Necrothesp 00:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A major category missed in the proposal are the leaders of (at least major) political parties; the criteria might be whether the party has successfully fielded a candidate for the legislature. I would also recommend including heads of governments in exile as notable. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 6. National legislative leaders: People who are a current or former leader of the government/majority party or coalition in a national legislature, or the leader of significant opposition parties/coalitions. Is that what you want? I admit I wrote the proposal rather densely, and it may be easy to overlook individual bits of it. Argyriou (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I've made some edits to clarify this proposed guideline. The most important is 
If you think that something like this would be useful, but don't like some specific number, or some specific exclusion or inclusion I've made, I'm very willing to change these numbers to accomodate your points. 
If you think that this guideline is not necessary, I'd be interested to know why. Argyriou (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifications 

message: I like the idea of better guidelines on which politicians are and aren't notable. It might also be useful to have a "yes/no" list in some cases.  For example, while checking disambiguation pages, I routinely run across redlinked names of various politicians.  Normally I delete redlinks, but when it's a politician, I'm unclear on whether this is a major figure who just doesn't have a page yet (and should therefore stay on the disambig page), or whether it's a minor figure who will probably never have an article (and which link I should therefore delete).  For example:
* Angus Macdonald
Any thoughts? Should these kind of names stay on disambig pages, or not? Elonka 16:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good idea

message: Consensus to reject evaluated and supported --Kevin Murray 04:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejection - no consensus

message: Why do you keep removing the text of this proposal? Your claim (This is appropriate because the text was included as a merger to BIO. Other actions should be discussed at the talk page) is false - the text was not merged into WP:BIO. Because your claim is untrue, I'm reverting. Please provide a valid reason to remove the text of a historical proposal, when every other one is kept unless MfD'd. Αργυριου (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't insult my intelligence. Αργυριου (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's not get carried away here in talking about intelligence.  This looks like it was a one-man show trying to over regulate a non-issue, which is handled just fine by BIO.  On Radiant's suggestion by tagging for merger with BIO, and seeing no substantial support for your work, I merged rather than rejected.  This page demonstrates a lack of understanding of how WP works and how notability is handled generally.  But rejected is just fine too, if you want to leave a monument to folly.  --Kevin Murray 17:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of historical proposal