- 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected political candidate; article was speedied a few times, but author has protested. Does not meet any WP:BIO criteria as far as I can tell. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. I think 0.9% of the vote in a district of 20,000 people says it all. michael talk 06:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
unless the author adds more information. He claimed on his user page that Gilbert "makes (some) valid points against Kris Hanna," which could make the page worthwhile. Give him a chance to expand it before deletion. Garrepi 06:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Comment "Making good points" does not establish WP:Notability. The issue is whether the subject meets WP:BIO criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage" - maybe allegations against Hanna made headlines and turned the voters off? I know nothing about this guy, but it seems like the author should have time to prove his case. Note that I favor delete if notability is not established. Garrepi 06:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The page has been updated with more info, there's no possible way it can be considered too lacking in content now in comparison to other 2006 SA election articles. And by the way michael, it's not about the 0.9% that means he should get the page, I think it's his direct opposition to the sitting independent in that electorate that is the reason why. Timeshift 06:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At the risk of encouraging another indentation, can you provide examples of press coverage that he has received regarding this opposition? I oppose a number of politicians myself, but a page about my views does not belong on Wikipedia. The fact that he got .9% of the vote (~180, apparently) makes him look non-notable. Garrepi 06:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're kidding me... now we have to quote the PRESS to make an article worthy? Of course he's not gonna make the press, he's a green independent ffs! Have you run as an independent against a popular re-elected independent? If so, please add an article of your own. You know what, No Rodeo never made the press either. We'd better delete them too. Why not just go on a wikipedia-wide whichhunt and delete every article that didn't make the press. ffs, all I try to do is improve wikipedia and I get jumped on. Why do I even bother. Timeshift 06:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. You have to demonstrate that someone other than the subject himself has written and published something non-trivial about him. Candidates for elected office are generally considered notable if they (a) win or (b) lose but do so in a fashion spectacular enough to cause non-trival press coverage. Candidates about which nothing is written apart from a single row in an election results table should be represented in Wikipedia in the same way: as a single row of an election results table in (say) Electoral district of Mitchell (South Australia) (see Reading West (UK Parliament constituency) for an example). Uncle G 13:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're kidding me... now we have to quote the PRESS to make an article worthy? Of course he's not gonna make the press, he's a green independent ffs! Have you run as an independent against a popular re-elected independent? If so, please add an article of your own. You know what, No Rodeo never made the press either. We'd better delete them too. Why not just go on a wikipedia-wide whichhunt and delete every article that didn't make the press. ffs, all I try to do is improve wikipedia and I get jumped on. Why do I even bother. Timeshift 06:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At the risk of encouraging another indentation, can you provide examples of press coverage that he has received regarding this opposition? I oppose a number of politicians myself, but a page about my views does not belong on Wikipedia. The fact that he got .9% of the vote (~180, apparently) makes him look non-notable. Garrepi 06:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The page has been updated with more info, there's no possible way it can be considered too lacking in content now in comparison to other 2006 SA election articles. And by the way michael, it's not about the 0.9% that means he should get the page, I think it's his direct opposition to the sitting independent in that electorate that is the reason why. Timeshift 06:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage" - maybe allegations against Hanna made headlines and turned the voters off? I know nothing about this guy, but it seems like the author should have time to prove his case. Note that I favor delete if notability is not established. Garrepi 06:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Making good points" does not establish WP:Notability. The issue is whether the subject meets WP:BIO criteria. OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. A combination of a poor poll result and the fact that we need independent coverage conspires against him. "Direct opposition" in a political sense is also a bit of a vague term, and doesn't amount to notability. BigHaz 06:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no assertion of notability for someone with 180 votes. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-10 06:57Z
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mako 06:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of verifiable claims to notability. One article in The Advertiser seems to mention him, but the good folk at news.com.au aren't hosting it any more. Are there any other sources that the author could use to verify notability? --Mako 07:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- strong delete per WP:NN. Subject not notable at all. No notability asserted in the article. per WP:VAIN Sources are all the subject's own web pages.Ohconfucius 07:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are 23 hits on an Australia New Zealand database which are relevant to him. Against that, he got less than 1% of the vote in his electorate.Capitalistroadster 07:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like a delete to me, but I would be interested in what sort of mentions he gets in the hits Capitalistroadster found. JPD (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until the person becomes more notable. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 17:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite or Delete. Advertising, because all links are not independently sourced. Could be made into a better article if good sources of biographical information can be found. Cdcon 17:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. If this article is extensively rewritten in such a way that notability is expressed, please leave me a note on my talk page and I will reconsider. RFerreira 19:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. --Roisterer 04:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn. Mukadderat 19:27, 13 August 2006 (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.