Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Colvile


 * 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 Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (UK Parliament constituency). – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Colvile

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. Non-notable election candidate; there is no sign of any substantial coverage of him in reliable sources, just the usual list-entries and party websites etc. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep.The article links from three long-existing Wikipedia articles on the constituency in question and therefore performs the useful and intrinsic purpose of expanding Wikipedia's breadth of coverage. The Guardian is a recognised and reliable source. The article is information-based rather than politically focused. 93.97.43.71 (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (UK Parliament constituency). Succinct relevant content can then be moved over by any editor. WP:POLITICIAN requires redirects as a "general rule" for candidates for the purposes of preserving content. Here, "Oliver Colvile" is a viable search term and it would be helpful to searchers to go to the constituency page. This candidate is not notable and the article, save for the direct, would otherwise require deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect, as with long-standing precedent on otherwise non-notable parliamentary candidates; we can always resurrect the article if he wins! Shimgray | talk | 22:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect as clear WP:POLITICIAN. 93.97.43.71: news sources that list numerical data on every single candidate do not count as reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect for reason stated and that the election isn't far away so is a relevent search term for the constituency. --Wintonian (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the constituency page for now, then we can decide what to do with it depending on the outcome of the election. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the constituency page, currently fails WP:POLITICIAN. We may get / find more of these as election agents, etc. think that having a Wikipedia page is part of their election strategy. These people are merely Prospective Parliamentary Candidates at the moment as they cannot be nominated until the election is called. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SaveThis last comment is not in fact the case. He won the nomination some time ago. I think if people are considering voting for a major party representative, particularly in a predicted gain seat, that makes him/her notable. Seems to be quite a bit of coverage about him online in recent years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.43.71 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:POLITICIAN and the comments above to see why your assertion is incorrect. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 15 March 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.