Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Beams

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. The stated view that the notability bar should be set very low for politicians is interesting, but we are working to WP's current standard and the consensus is that this does not meet it. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Beams

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

Non-notable minor political figure, with no reliable third-party sources. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The article was previously prodded and deleted in 2008; it was subsequently restored to userspace and quickly moved back to mainspace earlier this month. A prod notice was removed with the claim that further sources had been added, but the only such source was the Socialist Equality Party's website. A Google News search yields nothing. Frickeg (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Frickeg (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I write tons of political biographies on the radical and anti-radical movement. I'd be very happy to see every Executive Secretary of the tiniest sect ruled to be notable per se because ultimately labor history is written about such people. I further believe politicians of all stripes should face the lowest of all notability bars for coverage since the presentation of neutral biographical information on Wikipedia represents a valuable public service. So, on the grounds of both office and status as an active politician, in my view this is an easy call. Carrite (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obscure figure in an obscure party; no decent sources showing any sort of notability. Rebecca (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and no independent reliable sources have been provided. This is a general purpose encyclopedia not a guide to esoteric movements in left wing politics in Australia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Leader of a notable party (that alone is enough for german wikipedia to keep him) + many citations in google scholar + published at least "8 works in 10 publications in 2 languages and 70 library holdings" according to Worldcat + candidate in australian federal elections. See also what User Meltchn wrote on the discussion page. --Korcur (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's deal with those individually, shall we? (1) Being the leader of an ultra-minor party is definitely not ground for notability - also, this is English Wikipedia not German, and as far as I can see there has been no AfD over there; (2) 49 citations in Google Scholar is not really "many", and none are particularly significant, (3) see WP:PROF, (4) not even close to being notable. He still fails WP:GNG because there's no significant coverage in independent reliable sources (and the World Socialist Web Site, which is Meltchn's main source, hardly qualifies as independent). Frickeg (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You won´t find a german AfD, because its rules declare that every national leader of a notable party is also notable ("Nationaler Parteivorsitzender einer enzyklopädisch relevanten Partei"). And why are the citations in Google Scholar not significant? Because you say so? --Korcur (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our guidelines don't say that. And the Google Scholar sources don't appear significant in relation to the general notability guideline - the first couple are all on Socialist websites. If any of them can be used to show that he meets WP:PROF, please feel free. Frickeg (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the general notability guideline, the politician notability guideline and the notability guideline for authors. A Google search returns no significant coverage from independent sources, and while a Google News archive search returns a number of results, I can't find any results that aren't either about someone else or published by the World Socialist Web Site. -- Lear's Fool 06:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Carrite raises interesting points, but the end result of the line of argument is just too far from accepted community consensus about biographies. This fails all of the relevant accepted notability standards: WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:AUTH. So it is a clear delete for me.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Orderinchaos 05:46, 4 August 2010 (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.