Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Thompson

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Thompson[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Entirely promotional article about a candidate in the upcoming Australian federal election, does not meet any typical WP:GNG notability standards. No significant media coverage at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL, also seems to fail WP:GNG. Feels very promotionally written and if kept will need a lot of cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 23:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for being candidates in future elections they haven't won yet, but all of his claims to preexisting notability for other reasons are based on primary sources rather than reliable ones that actually support notability. Winning a "Young Australian of the Year" award, frex, does not constitute notability if your source for the information is the Australian of the Year committee's own self-published website — the path to notability for that passes through receiving media coverage for the distinction, but none is shown here. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins the seat, but nothing here entitles him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This article is too self=promotional and the subject lacks notability. Poorly sourced, fails WP:GNG.Pupsbunch (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2019 (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.