Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Robertson

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. Consensus favors deletion. However, Eastmain (or others) - let me know if you want it userfied to keep working on it or to save in case of election.--Kubigula (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Grant Robertson

Grant Robertson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians in that candidates for political office are not notable unless notable for other reasons. dramatic (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete with no prejudice against re-creation if he gains coverage in reliable third party sources (my googling attempts have so far come up with nothing, but I might not be using the best keywords, either). Note that this lack of prejudice applies even if he is still an unelected candidate at the time of re-creation. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Of the sources found, really only one is significant coverage of him by an independent source (the "Stars in our eyes" one). If anything else can be found about him that includes more than just a passing mention (the fact that he's running for Parliament and/or the fact the he used to be an assistant to Helen Clark), I'll switch. For now I'm just downgrading my delete to weak. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I added some references, a number of which deal with him outside the context of electoral politics. I think he would be notable even if he weren't a candidate. --Eastmain (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks Eastmain, but looking at everything he has done other than standing for parliament, it's just a list of jobs, some more in the public eye than others, but I don't think they are notable either singly or collectively. For some reason the current version makes me want to put on an {{advertisment}} template - and this isn't a political viewpoint, I'm a Labour supporter. My opinion is still to delete, (or redirect to Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2008 by electorate) and recreate the article if he wins. dramatic (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This AfD was originally created for Grant robertson. I moved the article to the correct capitalization, Grant Robertson. --Eastmain (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Well this article is highly detailed, no vandalism, so keep it.Bye!76.67.93.126 (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - "highly detailed, no vandalism" are not reasons to keep. He doesn't really make the notability requirement - as dramatic says, it's a list of jobs plus standing as a candidate. If he gets elected, that'll be different. JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This article is slowly being epanded, and has no vandalism, so it has helped contribute to Wikipedia in a good way, we don't have to delete it!!!!!!!!Mertozoro (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Please read the above discussion and WP:BIO. The quality of the article (besides Verifiability means nothing if the subject is not notable. dramatic (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable politician — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritzpoll (talk • contribs) 15:56, 22 March 2008 (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.