They used to say there is nothing so 'ex' than an 'ex' MP, but that goes doubly for ex by election candidates. Click HERE to see how LibDem candidate Elizabeth Shenton's Wikipedia entry is already 'marked for deletion'. Bless.
They used to say there is nothing so 'ex' than an 'ex' MP, but that goes doubly for ex by election candidates. Click HERE to see how LibDem candidate Elizabeth Shenton's Wikipedia entry is already 'marked for deletion'. Bless.
Hmm. I can't see how it breaches the guidelines which would lead it to be deleted. I think this is a piece of petty vandalism, possibly by the Lib Dems who are unhappy about a parachuted candidate, or by Labour who are trying to spin this as a Lib Dem failure - which is helpful to no one but Labour. The Lib Dems got more votes last night than in 2001 which was their electoral breakthrough election.
ReplyDeleteAnother brilliant thing about the new proTory voting patterns is that people have realised at last that if they want to get NuLabour out they have to vote Conservative. Tony Blair got his third term at the last election by mistake because so many anti-Labour people voted LimDem and therefore split the opposition vote.
ReplyDeleteI fervently hope that the LibDem won't thwart the wishes of the electorate in the next General Election.
"Delete per ample precedent that being abn [sic] unsuccessful candidate in a British parliamentary election does not confer notability. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)"
ReplyDeleteThis always happens Mr. Dale... how you do love to stir.
But she is kind to kittens, so I hope she enjoys the obscurity of the rest of her life...
ReplyDeleteThe LibDems have already thwarted the wishes of the London electorate by forming an alliance with Labour in the London Assembley in an attempt to sabotage Boris' plans.
ReplyDeleteYes, odd that Tim Roll-Pickering, who is a Conservative activist, has decided that the article on Elizabeth Shenton should be deleted...
ReplyDeleteOr in reference to the Labout party.
ReplyDeleteThis parrot is dead, it wouldn't zoom if you put three million volts throught it.
Iain,
ReplyDeleteYou clearly don't understand the concept of being magnanimous in victory, do you?
I thought she conducted her totally unwinnable campaign with a lot of dignity.
You might learn something from that.
Copied from my blog
ReplyDelete"In Hartlepool under a good labour candidate of Ian Wright in 2004, the labour party lost 18.5% of the their vote. Yet in Crewe 2008 Labour have lost 18.9% of the their vote. So this is not even the biggest election decline under labour.
Hartlepool by-election, 2004
Party Candidate Votes
Labour Iain Wright 12,752 -18.5%
Liberal Democrat Jody Dunn 10,719 +19.2%
OK so labour won the seat but their loss of vote was bigger than Crewew.
Crewe 2008
Conservative 20,539 +16.9
Labour 12,679 –18.2"
So this is not the worst by election result for labour. In 2004 we lost more of our vote and still went onto win the 2005 general election. Does that make you you shit yourselves tories or what.
Does the same reasoning also apply to unsuccessful general election candidates?
ReplyDeleteTim Roll-Pickering did it! Many thanks for the laugh Ian! I am surprised Tim wastes his time on such things.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, that's not our Libby, even if you turn it up the right way and take its legs off - it's feathers are wrongly drawn. You'll have Mark Pack complaining to you. ;-)
Well at least Tamsin will still keep her entry in Burke's peerage!
ReplyDelete{By the way - I often look at your blog from my mobile phone but you seem to have changed your settings and I can't read it now unless on a proper computer.}
So how will we have to wait until Brown is 'marked for deletion'?
ReplyDeleteDirtyeuropeansocialist - given up on spreading your nonsense on the Telegraph blogs so having a punt here then? You are of course quite right. Difference is it was the Lib Dems who used to pick up the Labour votes. Now they're not even bothering with them and they are going straight to the Conservatives which not so long ago would have been unheard of. The only people shitting themselves this morning are the Lib Dems and the Labour MPs who are sitting in the Tory targets 1-164...
ReplyDeleteJudge Elvis You talk drivel. Lbaour will recover and kick you tory morons back to eton.
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean Iain's profile on Wikipedia should also be deleted, as he is a failed parliamentary candidate having spectacularly lost his constituency by over 10,000 in what was the Conservative Party's number one target seat!!!
ReplyDeleteUser "Timrollpickering" who AFD'd it in Wik is a well-known ardent right-wing unionist. It may or may not be notable but they are just manouvering and you are just having a bit of a laff Iain. Although it is quite funny.
ReplyDeleteHer speech last night was appalling. It's one thing to dress like a substitute primary school teacher but another to patronise an audience like it too.
ReplyDeleteI can only imagine how bad the previous candidate was that they felt the need to replace them with Shelton.
I would have thought that there is a logic that being an ex byelection candidate is probably not particularly notable. However I would also have thought that there is a logic to keeping articles as such up for a set period post polling day, perhaps a month. By which time everyone will have forgotten it.
ReplyDeleteErlend
Labour will recover and kick you tory morons back to Eton.
ReplyDeleteSorry you are feeling sore today Dirty. Never fear, I am sure that Labour can win the 2024 election. By that time the country will have forgotten how pathetic and incompetent Gordon Brown was.
Erland, you are right within the rules of Wikipedia - editors are supposed to show good conduct without bias and not base editing strategies on private interests without clearly stating them. This is laid down in the Conflict of Interest rules:
ReplyDelete"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor."
(Wikipedia rules on conflicts of interest, WP:Conflict)
In this case, Tim has clearly broken them by not stating why he is carrying out the AFD process and attempting to portray it as neutral when in fact he is plainly motivated by political spite. I have attempted to challenge this in the AFD article comments page.
This is the sort of spiteful, narrow behaviour which gives all parties a bad name, puts voters off the political process and leads parties into narrow, sectarian politics. It shouldn't be celebrated.
There is an objective discussion to be had on Wikipedia on the question of notability for by-election candidates in general, but for activists to attempt to spike existing pages merely for hidden political motives is pathetic.
"dirtyeuropeansocialist.: said...
ReplyDeleteJudge Elvis You talk drivel. Lbaour will recover and kick you tory morons back to eton."
Actually, I'm from Belfast but I did visit Windsor & Eton once on a day trip. Lovely place.
dirtyeuropeansocialist. said...
ReplyDelete"So this is not the worst by election result for labour."
Mind your own business you foreign dirtbag.
Liberallycritical, so you're the one who commented on the talk page? I may just join you in protesting. It's all very well if the Wikipedia polizei want to be cheap and delete the article (although I can never understand who would want to put a restriction on the dissemination of knowledge), but someone with Tim Roll-Pickering's credentials shouldn't be doing it.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if it's grounds for notability if a Conservative (Future?) activist tried to get the article deleted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timrollpickering/About_me
ReplyDeleteThis is profile of the Wikipedia user - Tim Roll-Pickering - who nominated Elizabeth Shenton's post for deletion.
"Roll-Pickering joined the Conservative Party in 1997 and has campaigned for it at the last three general elections. Whilst at the University of Kent he served in several officer posts for Kent University Conservative Association..."
Methinks this is another case of Grant Shapps Syndrome.
2:18 PM Eurpe is not fgoreign you utterly pratt. Have you got a brain cell. What sort of moron think the UK is not in Europe you utter utter ####. I know you're that simeon money chap.
ReplyDeleteto be fair, there was a debate about her notability going on since 6 May, Iain. The deletion nomination was a conclusion of this - 24 hours or so after the latest note of her not being notable, an administrator got onto the case. you ought to check these things fully.
ReplyDeleteThere is a clear misunderstanding here of Wikipedia policies, COI can only apply to the creation of articles, not for AfD processes. In addition there is ample precedent for biography pages which assert no notability to be deleted, if you look at the other participants in the by-election who have bios you will see that they are an MP, MEP and former AM, all of which assert notability. Shenton is currently only a councillor (not notable) and a failed candidate (not notable), there is no reason for her to have a biography on wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteAnon 3:59, you are talking nonsense. It relates to ANY EDITS of ANY KIND.
ReplyDeleteI quote directly from WP:CONFLICT.
"How to avoid COI edits
Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:
Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with"
Funny, I have though it oh too petty to comment on this on my blog every time a Tory has lost a by-election and gets kicked off Wikipedia
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=tony+lit
But seriously, she was a pretty crappy candidate. Even worse than Tamsin Dunwoody.
ReplyDeleteDare I say it, Elizabeth Shenton is notable - just search (Lexis-)Nexis. I can't believe they deleted the Tony Lit page - it's like these people just want to delete history. It's not like the Wikimedia Foundation can't afford the bandwith.
ReplyDeleteAs usual on Wikipedia, the Self-Defence club of Tory admins is gathering to protect the deletion - if any admins are reading this who are not brainless Tory Boy automatons, can they please take a look at the AFD and counter them please?
ReplyDeleteAs I've spent all day patrolling around an exam hall this is the first I've seen of the comment. I'd like to set a few things straight:
ReplyDelete1). There is indeed ample precedent in past Wikipedia deletion discussions that being or having been a parliamentary candidate in the Westminster system does not make someone inherently notable. Hence the nomination.
2). As others have pointed out, the other candidates in the by-election who have articles include the new MP, a former Welsh Assembly Member, an MEP and the current Miss Great Britain. With the possible exception of the last (as I haven't much experience of AFDs on beauty contest winners) all positions confer notability. Hence not nominating any for deletion.
3). I have in the past nominated articles on ex candidates from both main parties as well as the Liberal Democrats and other small parties. That is hardly partisan bias.
4). Wikipedia articles by definition tend to attract editors who have interest in or vague connections to the subject matter. However anyone routinely just making AFD nominations with an axe to grind would rapidly be noticed and the discussions speedily closed. Regular editors from all parties often comment on these AFDs and frequently they do come to the same conclusions - in this area that both being/having been a candidate and being/having been a local councillor does not meet the notability threshold.
5). Even before polling day another user added a template to the article querying notability.
6). Accusaions of bias usually come from people who are not regular editors of Wikipedia and who lack familiarity with the AFD debates.
7). I have not spoken to Iain since mid March when we met at the LUCA ball. The first he knew of this AFD is when he saw it for himself.