Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Hyyrylainen-Trett


 * 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 redirect to London Assembly election, 2016. As there is no rough consensus to retain this article, the proposal by Ansh666 seems the most reasonable course here to keep all sides content. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 15:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Adrian Hyyrylainen-Trett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DrArsenal (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DrArsenal (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Fails to meet the relevant notability guideline WP:NPOL DrArsenal (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC) The page has appeared shortly after its subject has become a candidate in the London Assembly election, 2016. The page includes links to a number of reliable sources, but they all reference the same Buzzfeed source, so page fails WP:BASIC "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." DrArsenal (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added 4 citations to the articles: two about the HIV+ status story, one of which involves primary reporting beyond the Buzzfeed source; and two confirming and about his GLA candidacy (as opposed to the non-independent sources previously given). Bondegezou (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Being a candidate for election to an office that the person hasn't won yet is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia — and because all candidates in all elections always get some degree of coverage of their candidacy, that coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot help show WP:GNG. To be notable enough for Wikipedia before winning the election, it would have to be shown that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article before becoming a candidate — so to get him in here today, the weight of sourcing and substance would have to be on his role as chair of the LGBT+ Lib Dems. But it's not, so for the moment he's just a WP:BLP1E. He'll be eligible for an article if he wins the election, but nothing here makes him an appropriate article topic now. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on May 5 if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, political activist and candidate who has yet to win office or achieve notable rank in Party.  Coverage is routine for an activist/candidate except for a flurry of WP:BLP1E, WP:SENSATION coverage of an unsubstantiated medical claim.  At best, WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete candidate with routine coverage. The media has a duty to cover all political candidates. Our notability rules say we only cover those who get office, unless their coverage goes above routine, or they are notable in some other way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG. Has received coverage for LGBT rights advocacy. Being an unsuccessful candidate for office does not prohibit having an article. AusLondonder (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * AusLondonder - could you provide references for that coverage, then, please? All coverage referenced so far in the article is related to his candidacies.  DrArsenal (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He was simultaneously running as a candidate at the time of much of the coverage, although over coverage does exist. However, the coverage at the same time as his candidacy did not directly relate to his candidacy in Vauxhall but rather to his role as an LGBT activist and by being the first openly HIV+ candidate to run for Parliament and the effect this had, including prompting other candidates to make disclosures AusLondonder (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  16:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How about this: redirect to London Assembly election, 2016; can be spun back out if electoral victory is achieved. ansh 666 00:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.