Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Chandler


 * 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. v/r - TP 03:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Luke Chandler

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Prod contested by page creator. Per Bonadea's original prod nomination, "does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG at this time." Google news search shows no significant coverage. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete A7. Non-notable, unelected, candidate. The article is highly disingenuous; it claims the subject beat another candidate which might lead you to think he won. In fact, he came fifth out of six, with 0.5% of the vote. The article even exaggerates the vote count by 25% . RichardOSmith (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete A7, per RichardOSmith. 138 votes out of 27,000+ cast = "no indication of importance". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable "politician". Probably does not meet A7 as saying he's a politician is an assertion (false though it may be) of notability.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  16:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Mr Chandler was on One National News being interviewed about the Right Wing Resistance group. Claims are also out that Mr Chandler changed the out come of the electorate by running. (Wagner won by 45 votes, Mr Chandler receiving 138 votes, had Mr. Chandler not run, the out come could of been different) IPineappleNZ (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC) — IPineappleNZ (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * To surmise that he did affect the outcome without backing that up with reliable sources would be speculation and original research. Even if it could be reliably confirmed, you would have to establish that (a) this was notable (difficult, as the election was run of the mill) and that this made the subject rather than the event notable (again difficult; see WP:1E). RichardOSmith (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete not notable as a politician, or otherwise. Ridcully Jack (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Duplicate !vote struck All jumping on the delete bandwagon which is sad. This provides information to people if they were searching for Mr. Chandler online. It's providing information to the public. If you delete this you are censoring free speech which is of an Encyclopedic content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPineappleNZ (talk • contribs)
 * But if this is the only place that people searching for Mr Chandler can find information on him, he is inherently not notable. Ridcully Jack (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Unsuccessful political candidate. (How unsuccessful? He came in fifth!) He's only 19 years old and still in school; maybe he will become an actual politician later. BTW PineappleNZ, spare us the "free speech" and "censoring" talk. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it has standards. If it allowed every article that anybody cared to post, it would quickly lose its value as an encyclopedia. Go post on Facebook if you want "free speech". --MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2011 (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.