Talk:2011 University of Cambridge Chancellor election

The name of this article

While I've no objection to the content of the article I find the term "chancellor election" very ugly and certainly non-standard. Could the article not be named Election of the Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, 2011 or similar. --131.111.128.77 (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I was simply following the format of the pre-existing articles on elections for Oxford Chancellors (and I think there's one for Chancellor of the University of London in 1981 as well). I've no strong feelings either way about the title, but I do think consistency is important, and so if one is changed, then all the others should be as well. Debonairchap (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

FTR all the other articles are in this form and can be accessed through Category:University and college elections. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I had much the same thought as 131.111.128.77 when I first came across this page, although of course what Debonairchap says explains how the name was chosen. I support moving the whole family to a format which sounds less awkward, if one can be agreed. Moonraker (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Abdul Arain

Is anyone able to draft a wiki entry about Abdul Arain? His having triggered the election (it says here...) is persuasive as evidence that he is notable, but it would be interesting to gather a little objective entry covering anything else that is know of him. And please? Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he is notable according to the general notability guideline. He has received little coverage apart from his decision to contest this election, and what little else there is is not generally in reliable sources (this is perhaps the most comprehensive). Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The obvious equivalent is Mark Payne, a GP who stood for the Oxford chancellorship in 1987 but was an obscure outsider at the time and since and has no article since he's only even vaguely notable for one event. (The article Mark Payne is about someone completely different.) Neither he nor Arain is really noticeable.

Also Arain may have been the first challenger declared, but it's likely there would have been a contested election without him because enough people would have been aware of the vacancy that someone would have objected and in an instant media age they could contact enough people to get the signatures together in time to put forward a challenge. (Back in December 1980 the London Chancellorship fell vacant and there was a much criticised very short period - of about only three weeks - between the outgoing Chancellor announcing her retirement and the close of nominations, with the added complicated of Christmas slowing the post down. Yet despite this the election had three candidates successfully nominated. This year Cambridge had about double the London 1980 length of time for nominations, and of course the internet makes it much easier to hunt them.) Timrollpickering (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to elections for public office (which is not quite the same thing, I know), the general rule of thumb is that candidates are not notable, unless they have their own notability regardless of the election - otherwise, people could make themselves notable just by collecting signatures and paying a deposit, where necessary. Chancellors of major universities are likely to pass the WP:N test in their own right, but mere candidates surely have to be looked at on their own merits? Moonraker (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)