Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert John Rushford

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. Hut 8.5 20:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert John Rushford[edit]

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

This has been created for a candidate to an unspecified election but presumably the upcoming Victorian election. He has held no elected office and his business activities do not appear to be notable. Grahame (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's actually a past candidate, for Albert Park in 1999, and as far as I can tell is not running in 2018. Not even the vaguest suggestion of notability here. Frickeg (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell there is almost nothing to be found on the subject despite their active period being aligned with the start of the WWW, so fails WP:GNG let alone NPOLITICIAN or NPROFESSIONAL. Note that the article as written seems to have a serious WP:POV problem - states the subject ran a very successful law practice BUT fails to mention the subject was struck off for legal malpractice - this is even in one of the cited (official) external references !? Aoziwe (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note - See what appears to be a Keep by an IP on the talk page. Aoziwe (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as election candidates — he has to win the election, not just run in it, to clear WP:NPOL as a politician, and otherwise he qualifies for an article only if he can be properly demonstrated and reliably sourced as having preexisting notability for some other reason besides the candidacy itself. But nothing else, either in the article or in the IP's misplaced talk page comment, passes a notability criterion at all. The only two properly footnoted references in the article were both WP:CIRCULAR citations to other Wikipedia articles, which I've stripped because we're not allowed to do that — and the remaining "external links" are not notability-supporting references either, but primary sources. This is not the stuff, or the sourcing, of encyclopedic notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note Article has been edited by WP:SPA with same name as the subject - possible WP:COI. They removed the negative external link citing strike off for malpractice, which is an official Government publication. Aoziwe (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unelected political candidate; fails notability guidelines. Eagleash (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2018 (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.