Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pj Jackson

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 - Deleted and speedily. A negative BIO sourced to primary sources and full of original research and suppositions. Peripitus (Talk) 21:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pj Jackson[edit]

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

Completely non-notable, negative-leaning BLP. His "party" has received no media coverage and hasn't gone near either an election or an electoral commission, and the references are either to his website or to his Facebook. It should be speedied but the author is challenging it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in independent sources. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN --Surturz (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails just about every guideline one can conceive of, including WP:GNG and, spectacularly, WP:POLITICIAN. Frickeg (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

snow delete created by a single purpose editor, obvious WP:AUTOBIO and blatant self promotion. LibStar (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not get a notability freebie on Wikipedia for founding a political party whose own membership counter, on its own website, still claims that at this moment it's still less than halfway to the number of members it takes to even be eligible to register as an actual political party. Nor does a person get a notability freebie on the basis of his own self-penned internet social media presence — every single reference here is to either the party's website or its Facebook profile, with not a shred of reliable source coverage to be found. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if and when the party actually accomplishes something — i.e. actually running candidates in an actual election, and thus garnering actual media coverage to actually support a properly referenced article. Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, remember that this is about the bloke, not the party. If it ever got registered I would vote keep on the party in a heartbeat, but most of these microparty guys are about as individually notable as me until or unless they fluke a Ricky Muir and actually get elected to something. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I personally don't think party registration alone satisfies notability. There is no Coke in the bubblers party article, for example, despite 🔗. Significant mainstream coverage and/or candidates being elected is also required. --Surturz (talk) 02:06, 1 May 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.