Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Di Natale
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. There is certainly no consensus to delete. Bduke (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Di Natale[edit]
- Richard_Di_Natale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)
Delete as per [[1]] --CatonB (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:BIO#Politicians, just being an unelected candidate for political office does not confer notability; and no other notability is claimed. JohnCD (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Di Nitale's profile in my view goes beyond the typical one-hit failed candidate that I think is underlying the existing guideline. He's been a prominent spokesperson for the Greens that I think extends beyond his unsuccessful candidacy. Clearly need to back it up with sources, but think this could be achieved. Murtoa (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is your argument for keeping Richard Di Natale, then explain why David Southwick was deleted. Southwick is no different to Di Natale. I made the case for Southwick and I lost the case - I cannot see a reason based of Wikipedia policies stating otherwise CatonB (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I was merely suggesting retaining the Di Natale article. I was not making any representation re Southwick. I'll leave it to consensus to decide the fate of the Di Natale article. Murtoa (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added some further content to the article. Di Natale has been quoted in reliable secondary sources several times in a capacity as health adviser or spokesperson (and on other issues) for The Greens, separate to his various candidacies for election. Murtoa (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is your argument for keeping Richard Di Natale, then explain why David Southwick was deleted. Southwick is no different to Di Natale. I made the case for Southwick and I lost the case - I cannot see a reason based of Wikipedia policies stating otherwise CatonB (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per WP:DEL#REASON, a what about x isnt a valid reason for deletion. Even suggest Speedy close as a possible WP:POINT nomiation. based on these [2][3][4][5] all created within 3 minutes for the same reason. Gnangarra 10:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there is a valid reason - because he was a failed candidate like David Southwick - if David Southwick is deleted for being a failed candidate so too does this failed candidate. CatonB (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are reasons other than being a failed candidate to support notability, then the act of failed candidacy in itself does not rule out notability. I've attempted to demonstrate this from the additions to the article. I think this was what was being alluded to in quoting what about x. Murtoa (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Southwick is a well known entrepeneur whereas Di Natale is a well know doctor. Southwick and Di Natale both have notable achievements but in accordance to Wikipedia policies they are not valid as Biographies and therefore these two articles need to be deleted. Southwick has been deleted- so should Di Natale as a result of it. CatonB (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's as cut and dried as that. In my view, Di Natale's public persona has extended beyond failed-candidate status, as evidenced by coverage in reliable secondary sources (eg. "The Age", Melbourne). Examination of the AfD debate on Southwick suggests that his entrepreneurship didn't appear to be similarly credentialled. Murtoa (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So did Southwick - he ran in Melbourne Ports - the first time where Jewish candidate ran against each other in a Federal election in 2004. This caused huge media in most newspapers such as the Age, Herald Sun, Jewish news, etc. In fact even made it to the 7.30 Report. Still that wasn't enough to be a biography in Wikipedia. Same will apply to Di Natale. --CatonB (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's as cut and dried as that. In my view, Di Natale's public persona has extended beyond failed-candidate status, as evidenced by coverage in reliable secondary sources (eg. "The Age", Melbourne). Examination of the AfD debate on Southwick suggests that his entrepreneurship didn't appear to be similarly credentialled. Murtoa (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Southwick is a well known entrepeneur whereas Di Natale is a well know doctor. Southwick and Di Natale both have notable achievements but in accordance to Wikipedia policies they are not valid as Biographies and therefore these two articles need to be deleted. Southwick has been deleted- so should Di Natale as a result of it. CatonB (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are reasons other than being a failed candidate to support notability, then the act of failed candidacy in itself does not rule out notability. I've attempted to demonstrate this from the additions to the article. I think this was what was being alluded to in quoting what about x. Murtoa (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there is a valid reason - because he was a failed candidate like David Southwick - if David Southwick is deleted for being a failed candidate so too does this failed candidate. CatonB (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. While I understand the desire to have some consistency in AfD outcomes, the additions to this article are sufficient to make a reasonable argument of meeting the general notability guideline.--Kubigula (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2008 (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.