Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Smith

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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose: As the youngest deputy leader of any political party in the UK and probably a lot further afield. I think this makes him a person of interest that Is suitable for Wikipedia. As his role develops in the coming months and years, they'll be plenty more to add to it I'm sure

Oppose: This article has enough information and sources to be on Wikipedia. This guy has done some things, I don't think it should be deleted right now. 74.108.224.146 (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being deputy leader of a political party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in its own right — it can be enough if they can be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but it is not a freebie that exempts a person from having to be reliably sourced. And being the youngest holder of an otherwise non-notable political role isn't an inclusion freebie either — Wikipedia's notability criteria are based solely on what the achievement is, and accord no special weight to the age at which somebody achieved it. But of the five footnotes here, three are primary sources, one is a university student newspaper (a class of sourcing that can be used for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off, but does not count toward GNG in and of itself), and the only one that's an acceptable reliable source is a purely routine list of all the candidates in a by-election he ran in. So no, the article does not have enough sources to be on Wikipedia. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source it better than this, but none of the sources here are good enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might be notable one day, but there is currently no in-depth coverage I can find in reliable independent sources. Warofdreams talk 22:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this should be a keep but the lack of any references demonstrating notability is an enormous stumbling block. It says something for this party and its leaders that nobody seems to have written about them in a reliable and indepedent source. I will see if I can find something to change my opinion in the next few days. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unelected politician. I am for keeping biographies of party leaders on an automatic basis, but this is a deputy leader. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NPolitician and GNG together doth work against the BLP. Am interested to see if Velella finds anything. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:36, 5 August 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.