Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Priestley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Daniel Bryant 08:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gavin Priestley

Gavin Priestley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A mere potential candidate for election into the Australian House of Representatives. The article makes unsupported claims and reads more like a campaign pitch. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 06:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No real claim of notability, could just be a campaign pitch.--Joebengo 18:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article makes no claim for his notability outside his candidature. Google News [1] comes up with nothing although there are some sources through Google News Archive [2]. However, these sources do not establish current notability. If he is elected later this year, it will be a different story. Capitalistroadster 01:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is unlikely that Priestly will get himself elected, and he's not notable otherwise. MichelleG 04:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom. thewinchester 04:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As the Andren-supported candidate in a long-term independent seat, and as the co-founder of ICAN (which may need mention in the article) with the three independent federal MPs, this guy is notable. It doesn't help that the guy's name is misspelt - I have fixed both this AfD and the original article. Orderinchaos 05:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The old article quite frankly was missing everything a good article needs. With about 5 minutes work I have improved it, referenced it and removed one irrelevant claim, and put it in cats. Orderinchaos 05:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While the changes have greatly improved the standard of the article, I am still of the opinion that Priestley is not notable. At this stage he is a former telco middle manager who is considering standing for parliament. He is not a preselected candidate of a major party (obviously) and as the nominations for the Federal election have not opened (I believe), he is not a candidate at this stage, merely a proposed one. I don't see him as any more notable than the hundreds of union reps, local councillors and party staffers considering a run at a parliamentary seat.--Mattinbgn/ talk 07:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, being good mates with an independent member of parliament doesn't make you notable. I see no other real notability factors coming into play with this chap at this time. Lankiveil 09:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
    • May be argued, however, that as he has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works (ABC and Central Western Daily, editorial Newcastle Herald 5 March 2007 p.9) he has become notable. It has yet to be elaborated whether Lake Macquarie and Goulburn independents - one who won, one who drove a star candidate to a 10-day result lag - were assisted by ICAN. If so he would be in a similar position to Warren Mundine Orderinchaos 03:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Calare will be a very closely contested seat by the major parties Labor and National / Liberal. Priestly may well be the 'cat among the pigeons', and as the election comes closer the profile of Priestly will only increase. It would be premature to delete the article now with this impending election activity. Better to be ahead of the game now and get all the information out there. Ajayvius 11:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Potential notability in the future is not a sufficient reason to retain the article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article is probably an early precursor of many future articles on election candidates as the 2007 Australian federal election draws nearer. Each of these articles will have a subject who is the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works, mainly regional newspaper and radio reports and therefore meet WP:NOTE, however the vast majority of them will be defeated and then forgotten a week later. While the argument that other crap exists is not a valid one, expect this article to be pointed to when those articles are nominated for deletion.--Mattinbgn/ talk 11:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete While it is well sourced - I think the articles cited are about the election campaign, not about Priestly. The last is pretty much primary sourced so it doesn't lend weight to his notability. Garrie 04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Garrie and Capitalistroadster. Sorry guys but I can't see the notability here. Sarah 07:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Mattinbgn. Calare has never seen an independent hand over to another independent, if Priestly wins then he will need an article but until then he's just some guy in Bathurst. Euryalus 02:53, 15 April 2007 (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.