Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul King (New Zealand) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul King (New Zealand)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

page was saved from deletion originally in February 2007, because King had founded a political party, and there being an election in 2008, it might be worth saving. The political party did not register (thus it is fair to suggest that it does not have 500 members); it did not contest any seats nor submit a list at the 2008 election, nor did subject stand for this or any other party at this election. thus, this is the biography of a person who was at odds with his political party and nearly did something about it, but in the end opted not to, and that this is not notable. Google returns multiple pages about Paul King, an architect from Christchurch, but the only political hit is his wikipedia page. The man just isn't notable. plan 8 (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  —plan 8 (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  —plan 8 (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Not notable per WP:POLITICIAN but has been involved enough to almost justify a page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteAny notability is somewhat transient. If every candidate who was on merely as an (unlikely) list candidate then unsuccessful electorate candidates would also qualify, myself included. 23:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, has received enough news coverage to meet WP:N. An article with greater than trivial coverage in the NZ Herald, plus several other mentions. Likely would have been greater coverage in The Press, but the stuff.co.nz archive doesn't go back far enough. XLerate (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The NZ Herald article looks like an oddspot article about a run-of-the-mill business dispute, and his unsuccessful actions within the ACT party don't rate a mention on the ACT wiki article. User:Efil& (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete-WP is not publicity for potential, but failed political careers, fails WP:N--AssegaiAli (talk) 11:22, 28 June 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.