Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidney Cordle

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) 04:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Cordle

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

Article on the leader of a group that is, to be blunt, utterly insignificant. The subject has never achieved national elected office and the sources are directories. Perennial losing candidates can be notable (Bill Boaks, for example), but there's no evidence that's the case here. His party? I am a Brit and have never even heard of them. That means they are less electorally significnat than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. Quite a feat. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 22:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant external reliable sources; basically all the sources are just listings which confirm that he was a candidate and that he lost. Doesn't meet the WP:BIO requirement for significant coverage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 23:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and no other claim of notability is made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Guy (almost) says, leader of a minor political party can be notable (Bez, for instance) but it doesn't make someone automatically notable. Yes, he's the leader of a national political party, but it's a party which polled 3260 votes nationwide in the last election—which is considerably less than half the vote won by Yorkshire First or Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol. As a former local councillor there's some press coverage, but not enough to remotely approach notability. As a glance over the many unlinked party leader names here shows, for these hyper-fringe pressure groups the presumption is that the party leaders aren't even worth redlinking. ‑ Iridescent 19:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are some dubious arguments here. "I am a Brit and have never even heard of them." Sorry, but ignorance is no excuse - I am a Brit and I have heard of them. "Lacks significant external reliable sources." That's not true, but if there is deemed to be insufficient sources that is no argument to delete but to tag it with refimprove. It "polled 3260 votes nationwide in the last election." No it didn't, it polled them in 17 constituencies out of 650, hardly nationwide. 3,260 is "considerably less than half the vote won by Yorkshire First or Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol". No, YF polled 6,811 in total, so it's marginally less than half, and YF did not campaign "nationally". CISTA polled 8,419 in 34 seats, an average of 248 compared with CPA's 192. Emeraude (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2016 (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.