Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Durnell

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 ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Durnell

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

Candidate for the upcoming West Midlands mayoral election, 2017, fails WP:POLITICIAN so far. Sources to support that WP:ANYBIO or simply WP:BASIC is met have not been found. - Sam Sailor 01:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 01:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 01:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Mail is a credible unbiased local source to support political candidate status as seen on the West Midlands Mayor Election 2017 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baconmanz (talk • contribs) 01:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. There are three references: a club that apparently intends to list every political candidate in the UK, a local newspaper article that does not even mention him, and his own web site. It seems the editors aren't even trying to establish notability. There are much better sources available, but in any case he's just another local government candidate. Candidates for local government positions are not inherently notable. Create a WP article if he wins, because a UKIP Mayor of West Midlands would be notable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the above delete comment is true then why is the page for Andy Street up considering he has not won either. The Local newspaper article does mention his name and poltical standing so therefore passes WP:POLITICIAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baconmanz (talk • contribs) 12:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Baconmanz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. — Baconmanz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Andy Street, an article initially created in our drafts namespace via the Articles for creation process, was vetted by a reviewer and moved to main namespace in October last year. The coverage we see in the sources cited in Andy Street is what makes him notable under WP:BASIC. That Pete Durnell gets a short article in the local tabloid Birmingham Mail does not make him notable under WP:POLITICIAN. — Sam Sailor 13:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage of local elections always exists, so an as yet unelected candidate for office does not get over NPOL just because one or two pieces of WP:ROUTINE campaign coverage exist in their local media. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person does not get an article just for being an as yet unelected candidate in a future election — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he already passed a notability criterion for some reason independent of his candidacy (e.g. already having held another notable political office, or having preexisting notability in another career), then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because of his political activities per se. But this is based entirely on primary sources, with the exception of a single piece of WP:ROUTINE coverage of his candidacy in the local newspaper. Andy Street is not an equivalent situation, as he is properly sourced as being notable for more than just a mayoral candidacy alone. Note that Wikipedia is not "the media", and is not bound by a requirement to give "equal time" to all candidates in an election — our requirement on here is to look past the daily news, and filter it for what people will or won't still be looking for ten years from now. And for politicians, that means holders of notable offices, not unelected candidates for it. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Maybe one day, but not yet. Edwardx (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Apparently created as a campaign brochure by a single-purpose pro-UKIP account. AusLondonder (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2017 (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.