Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Hilton

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. Proto::► 10:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Hilton

Alexander Hilton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:Bio Gretnagod 01:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable failed election candidate. MER-C 04:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - a verifiable national election candidate, councillor and owner of two major political bogs. Trollderella 20:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - I'm looking at the article's sources and trying to figure out where the non-trivial coverage in independent sources happened. I'm not seeing it in any external links from this article. Does this guy have such coverage? The article seems like original research to me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability. Nick Graves 22:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The Guardian? National websites listing county councellors? I don't think those are trivial. Trollderella 02:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Response: The bits in the Guardian and Councillorsuk are minimal, going no further than listing the man's name with his address and some election statistics. That's trivial. The rest of the references are from blogs and podcasts. Find a couple newspaper articles about this guy and I'll reconsider. Nick Graves 05:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"Some election statistics"? It's 'trivial' that he held a council seat and stood for a major party in a general election? We must not be using the same definition of the word. Trollderella 05:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The place I know to find a definition of what "non-trivial" means in this context is Wikipedia:Notability, where we read: "Triviality is a measure of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and how directly it addresses the subject." The sources in question directly address the subject, but the information we gain from them is quite close to the "non-trivial" line, as I see it. We learn what office Mr. Hilton holds, and that he ran for Parliament in 2005, and lost. That's it. I don't see any evidence that his various blogs are notable, seeing as no independent source mentions them. We could write a very short verifiable article on this guy. Is there a good merge target, if merging would be better than deletion, seeing as we do have some verifiable information? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Nick Graves. MrHarman 01:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above--Paukrus 00:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not for being a councillor or failed election candidate but because he is behind two major political blogs that dominate the pro-Labour UK blog world, and is setting the bar on new developments in political blogs in the UK, particularly with Message Space. The notoriety could be found by the coverage that Message Space's launch received in UK newspapers, for instance.Martín (saying/doing) 00:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment In that connection, Here's a reference. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A major-party candidate for a national legislature is notable. JamesMLane t c 09:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with JamesMLane that major-party candidates for national legislatures are often notable, but not when they are standing for a seat which they are obviously going to lose. Opposition candidates in safe seats are generally either local people of no note otherwise, or up-and-coming wannabes (like Hilton). In a few years time this man could be influential and more well-known, but then so could anyone. Presumption of future fame should not count as 'notability'. Nick Graves is right about his coverage in the guardian - it is ridiculously pitiful - one line reading "Not currently an MP." He does not even seem to have a presence in his local press as a Councillor, so clearly he cannot be too important there either. Finally, the article about "RecessMonkey" was already merged with Blog after a decision that it was insufficiently notable to merit an article by itself. DrKiernan 11:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Just to add to the above post - Hilton stood in Canterbury in the 2005 election, and the seat has been solidly Conservative ever since it became a single-member constituency in the late 1800s. Never elected any other party candidate since - and in fact has the record for the longest one-party representation. Gretnagod 15:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not elected = not notable. (Radiant) 09:16, 6 December 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.