Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Flynn (Parliamentary Candidate)
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 11:37, 6 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
- 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Flynn (Parliamentary Candidate)[edit]
- Tom Flynn (Parliamentary Candidate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Person is not notable as per Wiki policy. Although this article is well written, Wiki policy on political candidature is to ensure that includes those who are elected at a certain level. This person is not. He is not an elected representative. The name of the article makes this most clear, indeed I cannot think of another biog article with the Parliamentary Candidate disambiguation. I nominate this article for deletion accordingly. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable, self-published sources. Can be recreated if he should win the election, but right now there's no way that he passes notability criteria. Nyttend (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unelected politician with no sigificant coverage that asserts notability. I42 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Southend West. No notability out of being PPC, one column written for a local newspaper is nowhere near enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I would argue for inclusion of this article and all other article regarding parliamentary candidates for reasons outlined here ZTomane1 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of current notability. If he is elected, then he should have an article. Warofdreams talk 02:11, 15 April 2009 (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.