Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Wilson (politician)


 * 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 Jayjg (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Simon Wilson (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

" a prospective parliamentary candidate" would seem to fail WP:Politician &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 02:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  02:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  02:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN per . If this person is actually elected to Parliament, then a biography can be created at that time. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Nothing in the article indicates attained biogaphical notability, whether in working life, time on a local council or previous and prospective parliamentary candidature. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ANYBIO. In current state the article also fails WP:BLP critieria, though an AfD is likely to conclude before a WP:BLPPROD. AllyD (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Your run-of-the-mill Prospective Parliamentary Candidate bio. No sign of notability here, if he gets elected by all means create, but that seems unlikely since this guy is a Conservative and UKIP are thrashing the tories right across the country.Kiwiguy12 (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Things may or may not change between now and the election date — so it's best not to engage in speculation about his chances of winning or losing. Not that speculation would make a difference either way, per WP:CRYSTAL, but it has the potential to be misconstrued as a "deletion because of bias" argument instead of a "deletion because of policy" one. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Unelected candidate with nothing approaching significant coverage in reliable sources. Tiller54 (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Prospective Parliamentary Candidates are not eligible for articles on Wikipedia just for being PPCs — if you cannot properly demonstrate and source that they qualify for an article under a different inclusion guideline independently of their candidacy, then they have to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough. But that hasn't been demonstrated here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in 2015 if he wins the seat. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails to clear the Special Notability high bar for politicians. Carrite (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Basically agree above analyses regarding WP:POLITICIAN that he needs to be elected first. I am One of Many (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2014 (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.