Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Parsley (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ian Parsley
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Prod removed by article creator, who is also the subject of the article. This is the second time that Ian Parsley has created an article about himself on Wikipedia. The previous article was deleted in June 2009. While Wikipedia is not a democracy, the previous AFD was fairly clear with 8 people arguing for his deletion and only 2 for keep, one of them a keep! vote and the other arguing on the basis that Parsley was likely to become an MLA at the Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2011. He wasn't even a candidate. In the previous AFD I argued: "the subject has not held any national or regional office and therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. Coverage in reliable third party sources appears to be lacking. This is as close as it gets and as the BBC has, for reasons of fairness, profiled all candidates (there were only seven of them in Northern Ireland) it doesn't cut it as can be seen from the fact that the non-notable green candidate gets a similar candidate profile. Per countless previous discussions, just being a candidate is not in itself notable." All that still applies and the only other coverage since June 2009 was over a bit of minor controversy when the subject briefly switched to the Conservatives to unsuccessfully contest a Westminster seat where he finished a distant second. Valenciano (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - A play on Ian Paisley perhaps? Carrite (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there's a real politician called Ian Parsley, I just don't think he meets our notability guidelines. Valenciano (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If this gets deleted, perhaps we could recreate it as a redirect to Paisley? Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? He's got nothing to do with Ian Paisley other than having a fairly similar name. The 2009 European election in NI would probably be the best target in the event of a redirect. Valenciano (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the point: a similar name. See Articles for deletion/Magican and the comments about the "magician" redirect.  Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying but I don't think the situation is the same and in the event of a redirect Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency) would be best. Valenciano (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - last time, I spoke in favour of deletion, but, since June 2009, I'm seeing some significant coverage: Belfast Telegraph and BBC News articles on his defection to the Tories, an Irish Times article on his candidature in the 2010 general election, a News Letter article on the possibility of him standing in the Assembly election, a Belfast Telegraph article on a dispute between him and the Conservatives, and another on his departure from the party. While he doesn't meet the specific grounds listed at WP:POLITICIAN, he has now received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Warofdreams talk 01:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no substantive grounds for notability being asserted. He doesn't even qualify as a perennial losing candidate. The article can realistically contain no notable material beyond the fact that he can't stay in one party for longer then 20 minutes and can't get elected to anything. There is no notability here beyond a vanity article, which it is worth pointing out, what this is. Traditional unionist (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability, in Wikipedia terms, is determined using this metric: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Which part of this does Parsley not now satisfy? Warofdreams talk 00:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Coverage in third-party sources is difficult for parliamentary candidates (or European Parliament). Quite often the coverage is stock party line-towing quotes in local papers on whatever local issue is getting attention this week, and IMHO that alone shouldn't qualify as evidence of notability. The thing that just about pushes me in favour of saving the article is the bar that needs to be crossed for candidature in this case. In Northern Ireland, where almost all elections are conducted by Single Transferable Vote, you normally only get one candidate in a multi-member constituency unless the party is confident they're in with a shot of getting two or members elected - and in this case, this a moderately well-known party's only candidate for the whole of Northern Ireland. MEP election are generally regarded as poor cousins to MP elections in the UK, but it's still a harder nomination to scoop that many MP candidate nominations throughout the UK. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Warofdreams. He's notable because, in Britain, politicians switching parties appear to be quite rare. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In Britain it's not unheard of, in Northern Ireland, which is where we are talking about, it happens frequently.Traditional unionist (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not specifically the fact that he switched parties, or even that he then switched back - Jim Kirkpatrick has done that on far more occasions - but that his changes of allegiance and candidacies have now attracted significant media coverage. Warofdreams talk 13:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Kirkpatrick qualifies because he managed to get elected to a province wide body once upon a time. Parsley has been in more parties than the tally of elections he has won, that isn't notable.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 03:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG (significant coverage in multiple reliable sources). I've added some references to the article: see diff page. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:36, 29 March 2012 (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.