Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Thornton


 * 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   redirect to Poplar and Limehouse (UK Parliament constituency). Spartaz Humbug! 19:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim Thornton (Politician)

 * - (|View AfD) (View log)

Has appeared as a potential MP in the guardian and in the FT(sunday edition) and has made numerous appearances on BBC politics show

Links

Guardian online BBC IPLAYER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddj6 (talk • contribs) 2010/04/06 09:09:30
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Comment The nomination is unclear - are you indicating that this article should be deleted because the person is non-notable, despite the sources you provide? Or, rather, do you believe the article should be kept due to the sources you provide? Some clarification would be in order, I think. The article's awful thin, and the subject is merely a candidate for office, so we might not have the notability we need to keep - but I'll withhold my !vote pending something from the nominator. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I see your point although I saw the nom as being clearly non-notable with a lack of sources. Mere candidates do not normally have sufficient notability to pass WP:POLITICIAN, which is what I based my !vote on - though if the clarification shows that I misunderstood, I'll reconsider. (GregJackP (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say redirect to Poplar and Limehouse (UK Parliament constituency), which WP:POLITICIAN prescribes as the general rule for parliamentary candidates. But with the "(politician)" it isn't really a viable search term. So alternatively, delete. This guy fails WP:POLITICIAN and does not appear otherwise notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering he's an independent candidate, he's done well with the amount of coverage he's got. However, out of the two big sources listed, on was an article about independent candidates in general (mainly Esther Ratzen), and another was a debate where all the candidates in a constituency were invited (most notably because George Galloway is standing there). Good, but not good enough. Delete or redirect. If he does unusually well in the campaign and attracts a lot of media coverage as a result, I'd consider doing an article then. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, anyone with England deletion sorting on their watchlist is being sent to the wrong Jim Thornton. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

-He also appeared on the BBC world service last night talking about the roles of independent politicians Ddj6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete His opponent from a mainstream party was recently deleted for lack of notability (Articles for deletion/Tim Archer) and I see nothing to suggest that Mr Thornton is more notable. Paulbrock (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Mkativerata. Ray  Talk 22:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * REdirect to constituency: this is the agreed solution for unelected politicians. Press coverage does not make the notable.  If elected, the substantive article can be recovered by reverting, but my guess is that the redirect will be up for deletion after the election.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 11 April 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.