Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Bullock (Australian 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. The Bushranger One ping only 03:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Steve Bullock (Australian politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously de-prodded. A thoroughly non-notable individual, failing WP:POLITICIAN and without any significant coverage. Frickeg (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * delete never held an elected position. LibStar (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 16.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 10:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:POLITICIAN, never even got close to being elected and only routine media coverage. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  16:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Running doesn't imply winning, we have plenty of perpetual candidates on wiki. The requirement for WP:N is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" and here there IS neutral, third party coverage, routine will do the trick.  The fellow was broadly enough covered that he turned up with I was working on Steve Bullock (Montana politician).  I sure wasn't looking for him... and speaking of perpetual candidates that don't ever win but are most assuredly notable, try Robert Kelleher.  Montanabw (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply Please point out the significant coverage of this guy in reliable sources, ? Is someone who ran three times and lost a "perpetual" candidate? Your Montana example Kelleher ran 16 times and espoused a colorful mix of positions, so transcended our usual standard that losing candidates who receive only routine campaign coverage are not notable. Joshua Norton was notable as well, although emperor only in his own mind. Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that there is much: Looks like the Australia ABC http://www.abc.net.au/elections/vic/2010/guide/fern.htm (cited in article) covered his elecion results, he's got a show on a radio station: http://www.3mbs.org.au/?q=node/1128, not sure if he's the same Australian who writes books about reptiles or not, http://www.redbubble.com/people/pugsly/works/2669754-more-experimenting with two other more famous Steve/Stephen Bullocks, it's a sifting job. https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=net+neutrality+decision&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=steve+bullock+Melbourne+-Montana&rls=en&start=10 generates decent results I think it's notable that he's a Green Party candidate.   Montanabw (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, first - the ABC page is an election guide, covering every single candidate. (Some have more info than others, of course.) He has a show on a small community radio station. The other stuff is uncertain. Also, in general, Greens candidates are not notable. I know a couple personally. It is worth bearing in mind that Australian candidates differ quite a bit from US ones, in that the party, not the broader membership, determines candidates. Thus in unwinnable seats they are usually minor party functionaries or local councillors or just party members. Frickeg (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Thanks to Montanabw for looking for sources, but I don't think that they establish notability here (and I agree with Frickeg's comment that the ABC publishes similar summaries for all candidates in all elections, and note that this material is normally provided by the candidates themselves for the ABC to publish so it's not really independent content). I don't think that there's any reason to think that someone who has unsuccessfully contested a state seat which is safely held by a major party for a minor party three times would have received much coverage. Nick-D (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per longstanding consensus for unelected politicians. Carrite (talk) 07:16, 19 January 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.