Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Bonavia


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Bonavia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Being a parliamentary candidate in itself does not make someone notable. There is nothing else that is notable and I cannot find third party sources about this person. Quantpole (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN. I42 (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I have long thought we should extend presumptive notability to main party candidates for national office in 2 and 3 party systems. We sometimes have accepted such articles, and it makes sense, for its only a few hundred people a year, and it would eliminate a lot of debate. There's always been local newspaper coverage if people try in print hard enough, though this is easier to do in the US than elsewhere at the present. weak delete in this case, because the next parliamentary election is not yet here, and I can see the argument for waiting till then. Similarly, I would not suggest extending it to candidates for a primary election until they win it. (or for state or provincial legislatures). DGG (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect to Rochford and Southend East. I can see an argument for changing the rules for WP:POLITICIAN (and other arguments against), but that needs applying consistently. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Candidate hasn't been elected to national assembly and frankly doesn't stand a chance of being elected there either at the next election. Whichever way we look at it he fails WP:POLITICIAN. As for the rules I think they're fine as changing them would introduce even more systematic bias than already exists but this is an argument for another place. Valenciano (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I worry the arguments presented here are political [amended from previously over-assertive statement], as many other biographies in Wikipedia are significantly less notable than a major party candidate for national office in an upcoming election, and receive nonesuch discussion. For full disclosure, I am the author of this article.  This article does not endorse the candidate nor does it aim to disparage the competition.  It presents a neutral biography.  Furthermore the arguments for deletion in this discussion are a distortion of Wikipedia policy, and as such are simply not credible.  Wikipedia's notability guidelines clearly state they are not firm policy as many on this page seem to believe see WP:BIO, but rather a consensus among the community.  This article aims to establish a precedent of giving readers the ability to research a candidate as they would be able to an incumbent.  Additionally, the WP:POLITICIAN that has been cited states that unelected candidates can be considered notable if given significant coverage.  Refer to the added external links for a sampling of the coverage this candidate has received.  His position as chair of the Young Fabians also gives him added notability compared to most candidates.  ZTomane1 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My own comment was not political and I see no evidence that any of the others were either. Attacking other editors is not likely to advance your case. WP:POLITICIAN is quite clear that candidature, regardless of party, is not in itself notable. Consensus is how policy is established and there must be exceptional circumstances - absent here - to override it. Neutrality does not trump notability. The majority of the external links are not independent of the subject; the remainder are not about the subject so confer no notability. This leaves only chairmanship of the Young Fabians - here I see no evidence that this has resulted in any of the requirements of WP:BIO, and WP:BIO1E would suggest that even if it had this would not warrant a separate article anyway. Your argument does not persuade me to change my !vote above. I42 (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * By stating that the comments are political I am not attempting to attack editors but merely raise a possible motive that may be fueling the discussion. I have edited my original comment to reflect that this is a concern.  Additionally, I would use WP:POLITICIAN to promote the case that parliamentary candidates should be included in wikipedia.  WP:POLITICIAN states major figures in national or first-level sub-national political races can be considered notable.  Because the UK system does not allow people to directly vote for the Prime Minister, a member of parliament is the highest elected national office in the system.  This being said, I think it is fair to say a major party candidate for Parliament is a "major figure in a national race."  As for external links the additional ones provided are neutral and demonstrate the candidates stature within the local community.  This candidate has received ample coverage in the local press, not all of which can be found with a simple Google Search.  The very local nature of British Parliamentary politics make this a very grey subject, and my argument is that we should err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion.  I understand the need for censorship within Wikipedia, but I think this is a valid challenge that needs to be analyzed. ZTomane1 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored; censorship is not the issue here. Applying the Wikipedia guidelines equally to all articles is. If you want to discuss a particular policy, Policy is the place to do it. I42 (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Censorship was the wrong word. I understand the need for oversight within wikipedia.  Nevertheless, I am not proposing a change to the guidelines.  Wikipedia's guidelines like any body of law is flexible and therefore open to interpretation.  I believe the WP:POLITICIAN is accurate, I merely interpret it differently than some of those in this discussion and judging by the number of Parliamentary candidate articles popping up I would say so do others.  I think we should consider the particular nature of the British Parliamentary system when making this determination, and judge whether candidates meet the WP:POLITICIAN criteria.  I believe they do (see above argument).  Provided articles are presented in a neutral manner, I see no reason why they should be excluded.  Wikipedia notability is not a stonewall, it is flexible, and I think the parliamentary candidate situation poses an interesting challenge to this flexibility.  ZTomane1 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please use your common sense when reading Wikipedia policy. It's pretty obvious that the intention of the policy about major figures in national races was for elections to head of state or the equivalent, and attempting to re-interpret policies to mean something different is generally looked on dimly in Wikipedia. If you can find substatial coverage in local papers that goes beyond his candidacy, that might count, but it would have to be more than the odd quote in some newspaper articles. If you think you've got that, tell us and it might change the outcome of this debate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless anybody involved in this discussion actually wrote the wikipedia policy I think it is a bit presumptuous to make statements on the "obvious intention of policy." I believe that is the point of these discussions to reach a consensus on such issues.  If that consensus is that this article does not reach notability standards, I will gladly and respectfully accept that.  However I don't think any of us are in a position to comment on the "obvious" intention of policy.  If the "obvious" intention of the policy was to refer to heads of state, then why doesn't that appear in the policy?  As it is written, it is unclear, and therefore open to interpretation.  I am not saying that I my interpretation is absolutely right.  I merely aim to present an argument that may not have been considered by those who write wikipedia policy.  The British system does not allow for the election of head of state, or for the Prime Minister for that matter.  I would also add that Parliamentary candidates reach such a position by going through a rigourous selection process within the party.  After such a selection they become the face of their party within the constituency they represent.  This should be considered when judging their notability. ZTomane1 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - no claim to notability beyond being a Parliamentary candidate. A large number of people are Parliamentary candidates; most of them will not be elected.  Most of them, whether or not they are elected, are not notable.  If they are elected, then they should have an article. Warofdreams talk 02:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would point to following links as a demonstration of the candidates profile within his constituency. These links are in addition to the links currently found on his page.  They are independent of the candidate, and originate from a reliable source, the constituency's local newspaper.  The first article in particular demonstrates my above claim that PPCs are similar to elected in officials in that they act as the face of their party in the constituency they serve.  The second article demonstrates that on national issues that have local importance, PPCs are often the first people the media contacts for the party's take on the situation.
 * Local speech discussed in the Echo
 * Opinion on bus passes
 * The following examples, while I realize do not reach the level of independence the above articles, in that they were written by the candidate himself, I do believe still hold some validity in establishing notability, as they were still published in an independent source, again the local paper.
 * Views on town pool
 * Views on airport
 * Views on housing policy ZTomane1 (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there any articles written about this person by 3rd party reputable sources? What has been presented so far is just this guys opinion on different things in the local paper. If that was the criteria for notability then we could create thousands of articles for people who have written into a newspaper or been quoted at some point. The Independent quote is a one-liner in an article mainly about Anne Campbell. There really needs to be more than this to establish notability. Quantpole (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would go further than Quantpole and say that if we added articles for election candidates who have been quoted in their local paper then we would have millions of articles, something which would seriously unbalance this encyclopedia and introduce further systematic bias. For Bonavia to be included we would need significant coverage in places like BBC, Daily Telegraph, Independent, Guardian etc etc and I just can't find any of that. We currently have seven references/external links the first, third and fourth are all from his local party website. The second and fifth again Labour party linked websites. The sixth a quote in a local paper about a local issue, not a significant mention and the last a brief quote in an article which is not about him.


 * So to sum up, the 'references' currently included are mostly Labour party linked sites, which would be at fault if they didn't try and talk up a candidate in such a hopeless seat. Valenciano (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 20 April 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.