Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Abbotts

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 of the debate was delete. – Avi 16:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Abbotts

Only claim to fame is as an unsuccessful election candidate. Pages on other unsuccessful candidates have been deleted e.g. Antonia Bance Timrollpickering 07:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Failed non-notable candidate. doktorb _words^deeds 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Failed non-notable candidate. BlueValour 08:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Come back when you win a notable office. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. non-notable unsuccessful candidate--TBCTaLk?!? 09:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Long precedent that candidates are not notable. David | Talk 11:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Has stood in more than one election, has made a face for himself on the media, will probably be picked for a more winnable seat in future. I personally have no connections to him or the Lib Dems (I'm actually very anti-Lib-Dem), but I feel that as he has stood in more than one place, it will be useful for people investigating those election results to keep this article (something as a political anarak I seem to do very often). Sean | Talk 13:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, and as per Coredesat. Uncantabrigian 15:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge useful info into the by-election article and Delete - fails WP:BIO. "Will probably be picked for a more winnable seat" is crystal-balling. —Whouk (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Is inevitable he will restand as a candidate. He is also a sitting councillor. The inforation there now will be useful for future researchers user:nakedbatman
  • Comment Vote is from very new user with only thirteen edits on other pages, eleven of which on the page for the successful candidate and most of these edits bore a partisan POV trace. "Is inevitable he will restand as a candidate" is crystal-balling. Timrollpickering 12:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a major party candidate for a national legislature. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 23:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Failed non-notable candidate.Galloglass 2.00, 1 July 2006
• Delete and do not recreate until he wins a notable political office. SM247^{My Talk} 01:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. People might be interested of the candidate who almost won the by-elections even after the by-elections. Besides, it has been suggested, that there will be a rerun because of certain irregularities, so in that case the article would need to be re-written again.--213.243.158.41 18:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This vote comes from an unregistered user and is an early edit. The source for the "suggested...rerun" comes from a LibDem source, so is obviously bias. doktorb _words^deeds 20:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment In addition the Bromley Times, the root source, has subsequently stated the following: Mr Neill failed to resign his directorship until last Friday, but threatened legal action from other parties seeking to have him disqualified now seems extremely unlikely. Keeping this page because of an extremely unlikely potential second election is crystal-balling. Timrollpickering 09:24, 4 July 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.