Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Nugent

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. --Coredesat 05:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Nugent

Brian Nugent (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Here we have a politician who not only lost the election he stood for, he lost his deposit. No independent sources, and no sign of meeting WP:BIO. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete He was 8th of 8 candidates with 178 votes, being beaten even by the 'Legalise Cannabis Alliance'. The only media coverage was a 'looser' story from the Shetland News. I'm going to nominate his Free Scotland Party as well (separate AfD).--Doc^g 22:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable. A Google News search doesn't give any articles for him. For those of us not up on Scottish election procedure, I assume "lost his deposit" means he had a spectacularly bad showing? --Carnildo 22:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. In the UK, one needs to pay a deposit of 500 pounds to be a candidate in a general election. However, if the candidate receives at least 5% of the vote in the consituency, the deposit is refunded. So "losing your deposit" means that you got less than 5% of the vote and you didn't get your 500 pounds back. --Metropolitan90 23:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Is not notable enough to receive an article. Should be part of the article about the Free Scotland Party and possibly be dealt with in a section on Party candidates. Also, would recommend re-directing the article to the Free Scotland Party. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 23:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, ample precedent for losing candidates failing notability. No reason not to be listed in the results, but not sufficient for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assertion that losing candidates do fail notability requirements as there are literally millions of candidates who have lost elections and it just doesn't make any sense to have article about all of them. I am a former candidate who has lost elections and I don't think an article about me would be notable. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 02:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not quite as simple as that. Up the page there is a discussion going on to delete a candidate who WON an election (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Seeley). Surely what needs to influence the discussion is whether the person himself is notable; there are countless examples of notable people losing elections (Paul Foot for example) but their other achievements qualify them. That may be the case with Brian Nugent, and it could be that having been a candidate for the SNP (no further details given in the article), left them and set up a rival party is itself sufficient to confer notability. I don't know enough about Scottish politics to come to a decision so I abstain at this point. (Edwardlalone - you are too modest I'm sure!) Emeraude 12:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Mais oui! 13:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only did he lose, and lose his deposit, he managed to do so without making the news. Since WP:N rests on being the centre of meejah attention, for 15 minutes anyway, the subject is very much not notable and the contents of the article not verifiable. Given that Brian Nugent falls under WP:BLP, it would be extremely unsound to have an article on him absent reliable sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:43, 23 January 2007 (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.