Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Seymour (politician)


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

David Seymour (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NPOL.  Schwede 66  23:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 00:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC) - gadfium 00:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is already a heap of coverage of him which is not surprising at all, as he is the #1 candidate for a seat which is once again a key battleground electorate during the election this year. I'm in a way sort of kinda the "creator" of this article, After I saw the WP:AfC request from a new user at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Seymour (Politician). So I made it and added a bunch more references, as there is lots of coverage of the Epsom selection in news articles, opinion columns, and tv coverage. This gives a quick overview of the coverage prior to his selection: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11194914 To give a specific example from one of the many news articles, here is one to read which goes into who he is: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11195793 Mathmo Talk 00:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. There seems to be plenty of refs about him. Ollieinc (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - yes, and that is unsurprising. The same will be true about the vast majority of candidates of the parties already in Parliament, but that doesn't make them notable. Basic notability for people is defined as having "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." This person is a long way off meeting those requirements.  Schwede 66  06:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - you can't just lump this guy into the same category as any other random candidate for the other parliamentary parties (because yes I agree, most of them are not yet worthy of a wikipedia article according the current widespread interpretation of "notability"). A somewhat vaguely closer comparison would be with a candidate who gets selected for a safe seat for that party, and thus is most likely going to become an MP (unlike most candidates who stand). However even that comparison I'd feel is still many orders of magnitude off from correct, as he is the number one key candidate for a party that apparently they're resting all their hopes on (or so it seems from the media reports), and in an electorate that is already getting a huge amount of media attention on because it is an electorate that is going to (probably?) determine the next PM of NZ and this person is the number one ranking candidate in the race by a long way. Mathmo Talk 10:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "There seems to be plenty of refs" doesn't asses the quality of the sources. per WP:V Wikipedia should cite third party, reliable sources (i.e. not ACT website or right-wing blogs like Whale Oil and Kiwiblog). Adabow (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The blogs are themselves citing news articles, though I can include those too directly in the article. And did you go through all the references already there? Such as say these for instance: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11194914 & http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11195793 Mathmo Talk 05:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge I don't think he is notable by himself at this stage. There is merit merging this with the Act Party article. Maybe a stand alone article if he wins the electorate after the election, but not before. NealeFamily (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Maybe" a standalone article if he wins the electorate?? :-/ I'm astonished anybody could view it like that, as without a doubt if he wins the election he is worthy of a standalone article. Not ifs, maybes, or buts about it. I think maybe you're forgetting the significance of his electorate and this election. Mathmo Talk 05:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - if he were to be returned as an MP, he would meet notability requirements, as MPs are inherently notable. No question about that.  Schwede 66  06:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to create some excitement with the loose use of the maybe - you are both right he would get his own article. NealeFamily (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Considering the amount of media attention on ACT in the past month, I thought I would be !voting keep, but after a web search there isn't much out there about Seymour in the way of third party, reliable sources. Adabow (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Has significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Orser67 (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Candidate for a seat that is likely to be very high profile, and already has a lot of references. Lot of people will be searching for information about candidate from this electorate, and that's only likely to increase even more as the election gets closer. Could even decided the election result. Peteremcc (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Hello, I'm the user who originally tried to create this article, and my original version had references, but I'd like to thank the Wikipedia community for then making this page and adding in so many many more references!,Unlike other candidates in New Zealand elections the Epsom Candidate has already attracted a large ammount of attention that is why i started this article Antthecomjunkie (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Substantial references, and likely to be a high profile candidate, pivotal to the makeup of NZ's next parliament Hydroksyde (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There are plenty of references, and this is a very significant election. Jords12 (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2014 (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.