Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Towson


 * 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. it's snowing StarM  13:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard Towson

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

Does not appear to match criteria for notability per WP:N / WP:POLITICIAN - currently unelected candidate, it's not a first-level sub-national election, and no alternative sources to cite notability for any other reason. Of the three references, the first would seem to fail WP:RS as it's by his political party, the second doesn't mention him at all. Only the third mentions him - but is this sufficient for WP:N ? Other articles by this author have had prod's contested, so bringing it to AfD instead. CultureDrone (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Unelected candidate, fails WP:POLITICIAN. WWGB (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom (fails WP:POLITICIAN)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; easily fails WP:POLITICIAN. Frickeg (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Easily fails WP:POLITICIAN as being an unelected candidate. . I had nomininated this for a speedy delete and was surprised when it was declined.  This and several others (since deleted) are being added in advance of a state election later this year.--Dmol (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't just fail WP:POLITICIAN but could be deleted under G11 as seemingly taken directly from the candidate's campaign brochure without any semblance of encyclopedic content. If the LNP are going to spam and astroturf Wikipedia, they at least need to learn how to be subtle about it, like most other political parties in Australia. If we were feeling generous&mdash;and given the blatant self-promotion I see no reason to be&mdash;we could redirect to the party or the election. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:03, 20 February 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.