Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Caldwell (politician)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Caldwell (politician)[edit]

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

Not sure why this was passed through AfC, it was a largely unsourced and heavily biased campaigning article about a Queensland politician. He hasn't been elected to national office and, of the local news coverage that does exist, it seems to be largely very negative - which is not reflected in the article and probably would be challenged if anyone added it! Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ordinarily, I would agree that a candidate who was only nominated but not elected is not notable. In this case, the fact that the nomination was withdrawn (he was "deselected", in Australian terminology) for having visited a swingers club is sufficiently unusual to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BLP1E in my view. If you remove the totally unsourced biographical stuff (most of it) you're left with "he ran for office, then he didn't because of a scandal". That's not really the purpose of Wikipedia and what other purpose does this serve? Beyond the one-off scandal, what else is the subject notable for? Stalwart111 14:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Stalwart111: fails WP:BLP1E and WP:POLITICIAN. Frickeg (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An article on the same person (I think) was deleted following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Caldwell. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty sure it's the same guy. Stalwart111 15:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, if I'd seen that I would have tried to speedy delete it! Maybe that is still an option? Sionk (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per March 2012 AfD decision. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BASIC. AllyD (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete without prejudice against restoration after a deletion review of either the older article or this one per sometimes Wikipedia needs to be a bureaucracy and follow protocols. I was going to say "keep" per Eastmain, and I would probably go for "restore" in a DRV for the same reasoning, but this AFD is not the forum to overturn the previous deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete never elected as a poltician. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to LibStar: Past and present political candidates may qualify for reasons other than being elected - see Eastmain's comment above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

his other "achievements" don't qualify him for WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - I'm the one who approved it from AfC because it has several sources that demonstrated significant coverage and was part of a political scandal that received some media attention. And, though i don't entirely understand the process in AUS, as I read it, he is holding office. Not a great article, but a decent start. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to explain why you approved the article - that's appreciated. I can understand the confusion but the subject is not an elected representative or office holder. He was endorsed by a political party to run for office but was later disendorsed without actually standing for election (being on the ballot). So while there might be coverage, it relates to one event (the "scandal") and he still fails WP:POLITICIAN. The article could only ever be about the scandal, which is not what WP is about. If you let me know which political system you are familiar with I'd be happy to give you a relative comparison, but that's the short version. Stalwart111 11:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American, so I only have a passing familiarity with Parliamentary systems at best. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the sources don't say he was elected. For some reason I thought I'd read that he'd lost an election then was appointed to fill a seat. I think I was mistaken. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! We have "pre-selections" which are the equivalent of your "primaries" to select candidates for each party in advance of the "general election". Once you've won a pre-selection you become the endorsed candidate for that seat but of course you can be disendorsed if you "do something wrong". The subject never made it to the general. Stalwart111 12:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2013 (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.