Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Parrott
- 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. (aeropagitica) 10:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Parrott[edit]
I prod'd this article on the grounds that losing politicians are non-notable, thereby failing WP:BIO. Prod was removed, so the article is brought for discussion. I'm still in favour of delete.--Richhoncho 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a failed Parliamentary candidate and a failed local council candidate and a failed WP:BIO candidate. --RMHED 23:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per RMHED.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 86 unique out of 352Ghits for "Nick Parrott", of which most on the UK General election, and some press coverage of the local election where he lost by 11 votes. Even had he won, the presumption is that his is not notable. Article created by single use account. Ohconfucius 04:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be entirely fair, the guy has had a lot of local press in Kingston and is a well known local figure, writes for several notable blogs, is a contributor to the chartist magazine and was campaign manager for the left wing campaign against the european constitution. I don't see why for example, Alex Hilton, Iain Dale and Kerron Cross are allowed articles as they are also all failed parliamentary candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.184.128 (talk • contribs)
- 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.