Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antony Little

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 ~ trialsanderrors 05:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antony Little

Antony Little (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested prod; non-notable parliamentary candidate who lost and placed third. Inserted notability to keep prod is all unsourced and some was removed because of controversy with no reliable sources at all (in accordance with WP:BLP). Relatively minor offices held do not help to meet criteria for inclusion based on WP:BIO. Was also edited by User:Antonylittle. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair nomination in its current state, but surely if the current information is properly sourced it meets the criteria: '..and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. ' as the leader of the opposition in a UK city of pop over 100,000? Reverieuk 00:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: That is for people who were elected, not people who lost. People who have lost and have articles should have other things that make them notable. For more, see Wikipedia:Candidates and elections. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Candidates and elections is merely a proposed guideline. JamesMLane t c 17:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Further more, you might want to ask the User, AntonyLittle, if he can add any more sourced notability himself. Reverieuk 00:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: He can't and really shouldn't do that, since it would be a conflict of interest and original research. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well, points noted. I have moved all the content to User:AntonyLittle. If nothing else comes up within the time scale, I have no concerns with its deletion. Thanks for regulating Wikipedia for us all! Reverieuk 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. meshach 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity/nn --61.114.193.19 12:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Becoming a major party's candidate for the national legislature is notable. JamesMLane t c 17:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a big difference of opinion in the matter. Can someone of authority offer some clarity as to what the guidelines are for Parlimentary Candidates? I'd imagine that many article's fates ride on the decision. If it is allowed, then I think the article's importance overweighs any 'vanity' issues, and I would be inclined to vote for 'keep'. It is important to note, most of User:antonylittle 's edits have been to remove inappropriate content. Reverieuk 18:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

At the moment there is no authoritative policy or guideline. My comment above is my personal opinion, with which other Wikipedians disagree. Use your judgment. Over time, a consensus policy or guideline may emerge from the process of many people using their judgment on many specific articles. Then again, it may not. JamesMLane t c 07:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Candidates must meet WP:BIO like anyone else. If they are notable candidates they will have plenty of press coverage. This individual, though, has no cited coverage. Sandstein 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the standard for unsuccessful candidates for Parliament should be the same as for unsuccessful candidates for U.S. Congress: WP:BIO. A guideline that I also use is the question "Is this person notable only for losing elections and not significantly known in any other capacity?" If the answer to the question is "yes," then the subject doesn't reach the WP:BIO bar. This is the case, apparently, with Mr. Antony Little. B.Wind 03:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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.