Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Pollard Independent

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. There is consensus here for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Pollard Independent

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

David Pollard Independent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable single-candidate party which has failed to win any election yet. Mvqr (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Doesn't help that the creator of the article is apparently David Pollard himself (at least, the username indicates this). Jmertel23 (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I hope I am using this "talk" area properly - this is my first time here. Please let me know if I miss any conventions.
  • Regarding "non-notable": I would argue that by following the prescribed registration process with the local Electoral Authority (Elections ACT), that the threshold for notability has been met - at least as much as all the other parties. Further, this article was redlinked from the article on a State level election, indicating the author there felt the article should be created.
  • Regarding "single-candidate": While there are other unannounced candidates running for this party, I don't believe that running a single candidate would be grounds for deletion. There are other parties world-wide built around a single candidate.
  • Regarding "failed to win an election yet": Of the 16 parties contesting this election, 13 have so far failed to win a seat. They have articles given they have a history spanning multiple elections, but so has this candidate.
  • Regarding the autobiographical nature: this article was red-linked from the General Election article 2020 Australian Capital Territory general election, and a user whom I do not know requested I create the article. I did read the guidelines on autobiographical content, and believe I wrote an article that was impartial.

DavidJPollard (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidJPollard: "Notable" does not merely refer to an abstract concept of significance, but to the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines, which this party does not meet. That being said, it appears to have been written impartially, which I appreciate. Happy editing, Noahfgodard (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:BIO#Politicians_and_judges "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability....". Also, this reads more like an internal party document than an encylopedic summary. Teraplane (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no secondary sources, a vanity political party that appears to have 1 member, who isn't personally notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no demonstration of notability. Noahfgodard (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete/draftify. Our general practice has been to include articles on all parties registered for federal, state or territory elections (the way our results pages work you really need the link to go somewhere, but I can't see anywhere useful to merge this at this point), but we have made exceptions in the past and this seems like it might be another one, as I can't see any independent coverage whatsoever. This is also not a real "party" as such but a tool for an independent to get his name more prominent on the ballot; normally we'd redirect those to the person, but in this case he isn't notable either. Really any useful independent coverage of the party would probably get me over the line to keep. It may well be that more coverage will be forthcoming as the election draws nearer, so draftifying would also be an appropriate option, although I'm not sure the current content makes that worth it. Frickeg (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appears to be a WP:PROMO article written in the lead up to the 2020 Australian Capital Territory general election. Cavalryman (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN (has not held office), also WP:NOTPROMOTION, and being an WP:AUTO is not a good look. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rogermx (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. If there was more coverage on David Pollard, there should be a page for him with the party as a subsection, similar to the precedent of the Tim Storer Independent SA Party. Catiline52 (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per points from Coolabahapple and Frickeq JarrahTree 10:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless he wins an election. I would like to note that this is nothing personal, and ask the candidate to please not be disheartened. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2020 (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.