Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Miles

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. Courcelles (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Miles[edit]

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

Not notable as a political candidate, only other relevance is 3 obscure clinical guidelines research papers. FUNgus guy (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I haven't been able to find sufficient independent sources about this person to suggest that they meet our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appears to fail WP:NPERSON. --Rubbish computer 22:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates for office do not get articles just for being candidates, per WP:NPOL — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he would already have been eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate for office, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on October 19 if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't quite correct, Bearcat. What WP:NPOL actually says is "3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." I take that to mean that if coverage during the campaign was sufficient to pass the WP:GNG, an article could be created and retained on that basis, even if the person had not been notable prior to the campaign. DES ^(talk) 22:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, WP:BLP1E - if all the coverage were related to the campaign .... -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition to BLP1E, all candidates in all elections always garner local coverage in their local media — so all candidates would always be able to claim that they'd passed GNG if coverage of the campaign itself were all it took. Accordingly, coverage of the campaign itself is deemed to fall under WP:ROUTINE, except in the exceedingly rare circumstance that the coverage nationalizes into something far beyond the ordinary level of coverage that all candidates can always be expected to garner (e.g. what happened to Christine O'Donnell in 2010.) But with just one source here, nothing even remotely like that has been demonstrated so far. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails our notability guideline for politicians as an unelected politician. The article can be recreated if he is elected to Parliament. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
from the sources i found if he wins the election he would certainly deserve notice, however..... Is there a relevant 2015 Canadian election campaign article that might be a valid redirect? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect to Calgary_Heritage#Election results -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2015 (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.