Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Darwood


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Darwood

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:BLP of a minor political fringe candidate, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to permanent notability. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles on that basis per se -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates must either (a) have a valid claim of preexisting notability for other reasons independent of their candidacies (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) show a credible reason why they should be seen as special cases of significantly greater and more enduring notability than other candidates (the Christine O'Donnell test). But the only real claim of significance on offer here is the quirkiness of his platform, which is not of enduring importance in and of itself (a lot of "oddball" candidates run on platforms that could be seen as weird), and the referencing isn't really cutting it in terms of getting him over WP:GNG: four of the seven footnotes are just raw tables of election results (which aren't support for the notability of losing candidates at all), and two more are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person (which are acceptable as supplementary sourcing for stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by third-party coverage, but are not in and of themselves bringers of the GNG as they aren't independent of the subject.) So there's only one footnote that represents a journalist writing about him in the third person, which isn't enough coverage to get him over the bar all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep as meeting WP:GNG. If you take a look at the cited references, four of them are recent articles exclusively about him, namely the Vice, EssexLive and two BBC articles. One of the BBC articles is indeed solely a first person interview, but the remaining three contain substantial content referring to him in the third person. The remaining tabular articles are used solely to support numbers for election results, and do not count for notability. So that leaves three articles that count toward WP:GNG. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Vice is also an interview. Of the four BBC citations in the article, three of them are merely tabular results, and the first-person interview is the only BBC hit that's anything else. EssexLive is the only thing that actually constitutes independent third-party coverage about Thomas Darwood, and that's not enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete failed political candidates will always generally get a spat of coverage for being candidates, and while repeatedly failed candidates might be notable, there's nothing here demonstrating he's made any sort of a major impact as a continually losing candidate. I also agree with Bearcat's source analysis on GNG that the currently presented articles are not independent enough of the subject. (There is one that is not an interview with him, but it's routine campaign coverage.) Easy delete. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete I am not seeeing significant coverage of the subject. As a perrenial candidate, there is not an obvious redirect target. --Enos733 (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2023 (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.