Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Mackintosh


 * 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   No consensus (NAC).   S warm  ( Talk ) 00:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fred Mackintosh

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Political candidate; no other indication of notability. Per WP:POLITICIAN, that is not enough. I know there is a view that POLITICIAN should be scrapped or ignored, but until there is consensus for that we should apply it. The point of POLITICIAN is that allowing candidates to have articles is an open invitation to COI editing and promotion: I note, for instance, that this article was first created, some time ago, by user, and that the author of this version is creating a number of articles about candidates, all for the Liberal Democrat party. Even a neutrally-written article about a candidate constitutes promotion; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an election notice-board. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:POLITICIAN says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."". (Emphasis added) This person is now standing for Parliament for the third time, as I understand it. I wouldn't be surprised if there is enough coverage out there to qualify on that basis alone. However, no opinion until I check. Disclosure: I asked the admin who speedy deleted this under WP:CSD to undelete. DES (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage 1 2 (I would expect someone like this to be on google news if they were notable). I note that he is also the Liberal Democrat party's transport spokesman for Edinburgh, but the results on this basis are merely mentioning his name when he gives a statement, with again no significant coverage.-- Pontificalibus (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - based on previous years results, it's likely this person will be elected. I suggest it's left until after the election before deciding. If it's deleted, it'll probably be recreated in a few months. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the WP:UPANDCOMING argument; also, using it for candidates requires subjective, and perhaps partisan, judgements about who is "likely" to be elected; better IMO to wait for the objective fact of who actually does get elected. JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I have added a number of news references to the article. I agree that WP:UPANDCOMING isn't a good argument, but I think there is now a sufficient extent of coverage, stretching over a number of years and several political campaigns and several years in local office, to add up to notability under the WP:GNG, and in accord with the "can still be notable" clause of WP:POLITICIAN, quoted above. DES (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There are plenty of independent sources where Mackintosh has been mentioned, it's missing the point to say that just because he is a PPC he isn't significant enough. The fact is that he is a PPC for a highly marginal seat which will be at the center of the election campaign, he has also been involved in Scottish politics for some time.  People accessing wikepedia in search of a little bit of information about a man, who potentially, could be their elected representative should be entitled to be able to access this information.Notjamesbond (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Until the forthcoming General Election. One of many such articles of people with a strong chance of election to Parliament. We have kept all the others so I see no reason to remove this one until after the election when we can review it again then in the light of circumstances. -  Gallo glass  08:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary: if he is considered notable now, he will still be notable if he fails to be elected. In any case, I don't think that creating articles for all the candidates and deleting unsuccessful ones after the election, presumably by AfD, is a sensible plan. JohnCD (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - My own opinion which is appears not as clear as I thought it was, is that no candidate is notable until elected. In reality however, over the past year all UK parliamentary candidates with a strong chance of being elected have been retained on wikipedia so in all fairness I feel we should retain Mr Mackintosh as well. As to further reviews, we do this all the time with some articles coming to AfD on several occasions. -  Gallo glass  13:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They are not all being retained - e.g. Articles for deletion/Graham Jones (politician). It seems the result is rather random depending on who happens to turn up at the AfD. There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to try to agree a consistent policy. JohnCD (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Edinburgh South (UK Parliament constituency), and protect the redirect until the election. He's NN by our lights yet, but there's a bunch of good stuff in the article that we shouldn't get rid of. Ray  Talk 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Edinburgh South. Candidates are not notable regardless of the seat per WP:CRYSTAL. If he is elected we can create the article then, for now he fails notability criteria. Valenciano (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article makes no claim of notability. Subject has done nothing encyclopedic. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete far too low notability. If some guideline says otherwise, then change it. We can't maintain thousands of blps at this level.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Hmm, in my opinion the subject doesn't quite meet WP:POLITICIAN. Perhaps if he gets elected, but WP:CRYSTAL applies for now, I feel.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  00:04, 7 February 2010 (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.