Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Kennedy-Chapman

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kennedy-Chapman[edit]

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

WP:BLP, based only on a single deadlinked primary source with no evidence of any reliable source coverage provided at all, of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for election to a city council. This, as always, is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself (even winning the seat would not have guaranteed him inclusion under WP:NPOL, because it's not the city council of an internationally prominent global city) -- a person at this level of significance gets a Wikipedia article only if you can properly source that they were already notable enough for an article for some other reason before they stood as a candidate. Oddly, this article was created in 2010, but flew under the radar until now as it had been filed only in Category:Living people, and was never added to any content category that people actually browse until just four days ago. Creator's username, "Kenners1975", also suggests the possibility of a direct conflict of interest. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only a candidate, and Labour doesn't look good lately. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, UK Labour's current woes don't have much bearing on this at all — he was a losing candidate in 2010. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing at all for actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 25 May 2016 (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.