User talk:Nzbase

Speedy deletion of Aaron glimore

A tag has been placed on Aaron glimore, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TheMolecularMan (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the page because it is a blatant copyright infringement of [1]. I am also concerned that the article is intended to become free publicity for a political candidate. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia and such articles are routinely deleted. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can undo the deletion but I won't. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it's certainly not the place to right a "meet our candidate" piece. I would also advise you to take a look at our guideline regarding editing with a conflict of interest. As for the copyright violation, the fact that Mr Gilmore has allowed it to be published on the website of the party does not make it more compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL license. If anything, reproducing the piece that is the official introduction to the candidate is the sure sign that it's inappropriate. In any case, it's not even clear that Mr Gilmore meets the basic requirements for a Wikipedia biography. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't guarantee that there aren't similar pages floating around on Wikipedia but if there are they should also be deleted and if you know about any, I'll happily delete them too. To answer your question, no, Wikipedia is not the place for people "to find out information regarding someone who could potentially be a public figure of importance". It's an encyclopedia. Its content is is based on reliable third-party sources and provides information of encyclopedic interest. Knowing that "Aaron enjoys cricket, tramping and mountain biking and spending time with his family" is most certainly not of any interest whatsoever. It is also quite clear that your ties to Mr Gilmore prevent you from writing an article with a sense of objectivity. Anyone willing to know more about Mr Gilmore will google his name and easily find his website and the website of the party where they'll not only be able to learn about his love for cricket but, hopefully, political ideas that he's willing to defend. Now you are certainly correct in pointing out that a number of articles on minor political candidates fail to be objective and encyclopedic. That is the unfortunate consequence of Wikipedia's size: it's hard for editors and administrators to identify all problematic articles and deal with them. But the solution is not to tolerate more bad articles: if you want to help, please do let me know about these questionable entries. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)