Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Manley (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Manley (politician)[edit]

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

Unelected politician - WP:NPOL, WP:POLOUTCOMES, and MOS:CA#Politics.

Deputy leader of a minor party isn't an inherently notable office. Madg2011 (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deputy leaders of political parties, even minor ones, may qualify for articles if they can be reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG on "has received significant media coverage" grounds — but they're not entitled to an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because they exist, and this article cites zero sources at all. And when an article goes into this much personal detail about his private life (e.g. names of his wife and son) without actually showing sources for the information, the balance of probabilities says there's been some conflict of interest editing somewhere along the way. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With most biographies Special Notability Guidelines exist to supplement GNG and make more easy the inclusion of professions or occupations not demonstrating importance in the usual way, via the media. Take, for example, the case of academics. With politicians, consensus is to suspend GNG for coverage relating to their ordinary campaigns and to instead hold them to a higher standard via a SNG — that they must demonstrate notability through election to some high office, or party leadership, or by GNG passage unrelated to their electoral escapades. This is an ordinary unelected politician who was not a party leader. Carrite (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2017 (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.