Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bickley (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. Secret ^account 02:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Bickley (politician)[edit]

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

Contested prod, well established that failed candidates are not inherently notable, coming 2nd in two recent by-elections does not amount to notability, suspect some POV pushing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PatGallacher (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. I don't believe that this person meets any of the criterion there. st170e^talk 23:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable yet. In some cases, unsuccessful political candidates can be notable for that alone, but only when they've been doing it so long they've become a perennial candidate (e.g. Bill Boaks). This one doesn't seem to be at that level, he's just another run-of-the-mill defeated candidate. Robofish (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even perennial candidates don't necessarily get automatic inclusion rights in Wikipedia — it's still conditional on the substance of what we can verify and write about them. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:N as applied under WP:POLITICIAN. He has not had significant third party coverage beyond his candidacies in the two by-elections, which should be (and are) detailed in the relevant by-election articles. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. One does not become a perennial candidate until you run and lose at least thrice in elections. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant media coverage of individual meets notability easy. 203.173.182.197 (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The media are required to give coverage to all candidates in any election in their coverage area — so such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot help get the person over WP:GNG. Either you properly source that they were already notable enough for an article under a different inclusion rule before they became a candidate, or they do not become notable enough for an article until they win the election — except in very unusual and rarefied circumstances which this doesn't meet, coverage of the candidacy itself cannot boost their notability in the interim. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I am not sure to what extent the media are strictly speaking required to give coverage to a candidate, but since UK parliamentary by-elections usually attract a relatively high level of media attention, any candidate is likely to receive some significant routine coverage, so it would have to be shown that this was more than routine. PatGallacher (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL. An unelected candidate in an election or by-election does not qualify for a Wikipedia article on that basis alone — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that they were already notable enough for inclusion before they became a candidate, then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2014 (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.