Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Risstrom


 * 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   keep. PhilKnight (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

David Risstrom

 * - (|View AfD) (View log)

Delete as per [] and also local government councillors do not have articles as per Glen Eira City Councillors deletion pages. --CatonB (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   -- Bduke (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:DEL, a what about x isnt a valid reason for deletion. Even suggest Speedy close as a possible WP:POINT nomiation. based on these  all created within 3 minutes for the same reason.
 * Yes there is a valid reason - because he was a failed candidate like David Southwick - if David Southwick is deleted for being a failed candidate so too does this failed candidate. CatonB (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets notability standard - as someone with a career outside of politics we use the general WP:BIO rather than the usual politician one. In response to CatonB, I'm a bit bemused by the comment directly above as he voted Keep quite strongly at the AfD which he cites. Orderinchaos 23:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to have attracted a deal of coverage in reliable secondary sources, not just associated with his failed senate candidacy. Article doesn't currently reflect that well, but little argument for deletion. Murtoa (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (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.