Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Jackson (political candidate)

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 Speedy deleted at authors request. - Longhair 06:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Jackson (political candidate)

This article fails WP:NPOV and seemingly by the authors admission WP:AUTO (although the user is probably unaware of it as he seems to be a newbie) but most importantly it is not notable. He is a candidate at the forthcoming Victorian legislative election, 2006 with virtually no chance of being elected. There is precedence for deleting Victorian state election candidates - for example Luke Martin and the subject has done little else to be considered notable, except maybe this [1] but that on its own doesn't merit an article Teiresias84 12:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - candidates aren't notable just for being candidates. They have to win, I believe. --Storkk 13:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete election spam. A relatively unimportant candidate with little notability outside the election. JPD (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- JPD (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails auto, not notable. Notability seem to be a biggest problem when there's little barrier to entry - for example, virtually anyone can declare themselves a candidate. Andjam 14:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and speedy, nn-bio, wp is not a campaign stop --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 18:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, not NPOV and vanity. --Bduke 20:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. QazPlm 05:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 05:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per everyone above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• DO NOT DELETE This site has been cleaned up by an editor. All others should desist from petty political comment or bias. As a candidate for the election Mr Jackon deserves equal courtesy with every other candidate. That's democracy folks. If you don't understand this principle then you need to take a course or two in civics or politics. The proposed deletion is unwarranted because the article has now been edited by a professional journalist and editor, who happens to have close knowledge of Jackson. This information is relevant for voters. Jackson is well known to many other editors and journalists. He has been a columnist for a widely distributed periodical.

The article is no longer an autobiography. Vanity items have been edited ruthlessly, and it now conforms to the neutral POV policy. Please stay out of other people's electorates and what you think they need to know for this election, or your personal views on notability. Jackson's profile and recognition in this electorate is very high. Please would you now remove the autobiographical tag. Editor at large.144.138.196.103 10:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. If I wasn't going to vote delete before, I would now having read the rant by the anon above. --Roisterer 14:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The author seems to have given up and has removed most of the article, replacing it with some rubbish. I suggest we speedy it now. Teiresias84 23:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 03:46, 15 September 2006 (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.