Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mathews (Australian politician)

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Mathews (Australian politician)[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources as required by WP:GNG (all of the 14 refs (some are either trivial mentions or non-independent sources) and unsuccessful candidates don't meet the WP:POLITICIAN notability standard. PROD removed by article creator without any reason given. The-Pope (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Copy of the comments made by article creator on the article talk page):

I think that this meets the notability requirements for a political candidate. For candidates for office, these state that 'such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'.

In the references for the article I've included coverage of David Mathews multiple times in the Canberra Times (Canberra's daily broadsheet), Canberra's 2CC radio, Canberra CityNews (a canberra weekly magazine), and the Australian Electoral Commission. These sources are all independent and reliable and their coverage of David Mathews is significant which is defined as addressing the subject directly in detail which they all do. Canberra's election this year will attract significant national attention and well referenced articles describing the candidates will be extremely useful.

This is without considering the notability of the other aspects of the David Mathews article pertaining to his business and community involvement which I think contribute to the notability of Mathews.

I have only ever made small contributions to wikipedia, so I'd appreciate your patience while I learn the ins and outs of policy and these discussions. I'd like to finish by disclosing that I am volunteering on the Mathews campaign for election (which I have previously disclosed on my own talk page). Thmcmahon (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hasn't even been elected to anything. Non-notable. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 2042 votes in the 2008 election makes 2.2% of the vote. Per WP:POLITICIAN Serial candidacy does not make one notable, and there are no other claims to notability in the article anyway. Passing GNG is irrelevant in the absence of such a claim. If he wins in 2012, then he'll be there, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, it's not forbidden to edit articles that you are closely associated with, but you must be careful to maintain neutrality. Thanks for disclosing your COI; it is good form.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Being repeatedly preselected to unwinnable places on the senate and ACT Legislative Assembly tickets doesn't lead to notability. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I must strongly disagree with Yeti Hunter - passing the GNG is good enough for any article, any where, any time. That said, I don't think that Mathews meets GNG; the media coverage seems to be trivial in nature and he has not been preselected for any winnable seats as far as I can tell, instead playing a frequent role as an ALP sacrificial lamb in unwinnable contests. Community service is laudable, but does not seem to have attracted any wide media comment. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

WP:NOT always.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unchosen candidate Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:21, 10 April 2012 (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.