Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Gymer


 * 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 AdamBiswanger1 02:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris Gymer
A discussion on whether or not to keep this article has begun on its talk page. I am giving the discussion the proper forum (AfD) in order to settle the matter. Below is the discussion thus far on the article's talk page:

This is a procedural nomination only. I have no opinion on whether or not it should be deleted. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Longhair\talk 02:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and therefore candidates are not considered notable unless they did something else that would satisfy WP:BIO.  Mary Woolridge seems equally nonnotable (since the only claims are to her being related to notable people).  There's no such thing as "precedent" for articles that are on Wikipedia and haven't had their notability tested, only articles that have been through a deletion process.  And since Mary Woolridge was speedily deleted, there's no case for that either.  ColourBurst 02:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually Mary Wooldridge is still there, looking as POV as ever. --Roisterer 05:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Mary's page seems like A7 material to me. I'll tag it.  ColourBurst 06:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable. Being a candidate is not notable enough, especially a candidate without a chance of being elected. Article is also unbiographical, being mostly a policy statement to Doncaster voters. Jeendan 03:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A search of EBBSCO's Australia New Zealand database shows that his only mentions in the media have been letters to the editor. A Google News Archive search comes up with no mentions at all see so there are verifiability concerns about this article. As well, it reads like a campaign brochure breaching WP:NPOV. Capitalistroadster 03:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable candidate.  --Roisterer 05:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Candidate is of equal notability to Mary Wooldridge, another contender for the seat of Doncaster. There is support for retaining the Wooldridge article - it has recently been "unspeedily deleted". In the interests of balance and fairness, either they both stay, or they both go.  If the Wooldridge article is deleted, then I will change to my opinion to Delete Peter Campbell 08:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to note that even the only person arguing for Wooldridge's inclusion is basing her inclusion on the fact that she'll win, not that she's a candidate (how true that is is uncertain). This article, being nomination earlier, will be deleted first.  ColourBurst 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as unverifiable in reliable sources. Notability should not be used as a ground for deletion when adequate, independent grounds exist that are based entirely on Wikipedia policy. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 17:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Will become notable if elected, but not until then. Lankiveil 06:00, 7 October 2006 (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.