Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Halsall


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Andy Halsall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The reasoning behind nominating this article stems from the consensus reached in Articles for deletion/David Elston, which also referred to a Pirate Party (UK) politician elected to a minor office. As before, independent news coverage about him mentions him only in passing and there aren't multiple examples of reliable, independent coverage which talk about him in any depth. A redirect to an "executive" section of the Pirate Party UK article might be better. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   10:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   10:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing here adds up to an automatic WP:NPOL pass — and the referencing is a mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage of other things, which is not enough to confer a WP:GNG pass in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete small political party internal officer holders are not notable if there is not widespread coverage of them to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Even internal office holders in large political parties aren't notable if they haven't received widespread independent coverage. There's nothing about being an agent, press officer or treasurer that makes someone a public figure even if they are responsible for a significant organisation. My biggest problem with this article and the related one that was closed last week is that pretty much all of it is based on original research, glancing namechecks in independent media and sources that are in no way independent of the subject. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2017 (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.