Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerry Bevin


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Kerry Bevin

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The primary source of this article has ceased to exist, and no other sources appear to be verifiable to Wikipedia's standards. --Lholden (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  05:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Establishing a low polling political party is of a little notability but insufficient for an article about him. Some info about him could be incorporated into the The Republic of New Zealand Party article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references. The nominator removed a link to the profile on Bevin at the party's website. I found an archived copy of that page at http://www.archive.org and added the archived copy to the article. Since much of the coverage of Bevin is for "men's rights" advocacy rather than party work, I think a separate article is warranted. I do not think it would be enough to mention him in the article about the party. He was notable as a party leader, and once notable, always notable. - Eastmain (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I removed the link as it was dead, and nominated the article as I couldn't find an archived copy of the information. --Lholden (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  - Eastmain (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm seeing enough secondary source coverage to keep this article. Cirt (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * * This issue is not whether there is enough secondary source coverage, but whether there's enoguh actually cited in the article, which to my eye there isn't. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 01:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge into The Republic of New Zealand Party. Insufficient evidence of notability, but relevant to his party. MikeHobday (talk) 19:04, 6 January 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.