Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lee (British 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   delete. Kevin (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

George Lee (British politician)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article promoting a UK parliamentary candidate who has not yet held office at any level. Mr Lee is not notable per the policy outlined at WP:POLITICIAN, and does not appear to meet the primary criteria outlined at WP:N. There may also be a conflict of interest - I believe that joined Wikipedia solely to promote or 'inform people' about Mr Lee. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of notability. Merely being a candidate for office is not a claim of notability and the subject's rank in the Met was not high enough to make him notable as a senior policeman. I share nominator's concern, and the last paragraph of the article in particular is not written in tones appropriate to an encyclopaedia article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (see my comments below) Peter Chastain (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Keep: Please feel free to correct my misconceptions about UK politics, but it seems to me that an official parliamentary candidate of one of the major parties is by definition notable. I would take this position notwithstanding the requirement that there be independent press coverage, but that requirement is also satisfied:, ,, et al. The existence of a COI is not sufficient reason to discard an article. Peter Chastain (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've been an official parliamentary candidate of a major party and I can assure you I'm not inherently notable. Candidates may be notable because of their notable actions leading to their candidacy but the candidacy itself isn't inherently notable.  Candidates may also be notable when their candidacy generates significant discussion in reliable independent sources, but the cited sources in the article don't amount to significant discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I am persuaded by your argument and have changed my vote to Delete. If I understand correctly, the issue is that, unless Mr Lee wins this election, his current notability is temporary. Thanks for the clarification. Peter Chastain (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless he wins, or unless during the course of his candidacy he does something independently notable. It's certainly possible for candidates to influence debate and public policy by way of merely being a candidate and taking part in the election - and of course, if they do, there'll be significant independent coverage of that which could found an article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2009 (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.