Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Heald

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Heald

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Heald is a prospective parliamentary candidate and as such fails WP:POLITICIAN. He's an unelected candidate and has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. What little coverage there has been is routine "he's the Labour candidate for x constituency" and does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tiller54 (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Clearly doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. On a related note, User:Rathfelder has created similar articles for several other Labour Party candidates. I have PROD'd several and put on a note on his/her Talk page, but would welcome further review from other editors. Bondegezou (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems premature. Articles on minor political candidates are best not created until after the election, when it's clear whether they've won or lost; unsuccessful political candidates are usually not notable unless they have received a particularly significant amount of media attention. This one hasn't, so far. Robofish (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply being an as-yet-unelected candidate in an ongoing or future election is not, in and of itself, adequate notability to justify a Wikipedia article under WP:NPOL — either you demonstrate that the candidate was already notable enough to qualify for an article under a different inclusion criterion before they were named a candidate, or they do not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until they win the election. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Heald is an NHS consultant makes his candidature in itself noteworthy. Rathfelder (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NHS consultants don't get an automatic presumption of notability in Wikipedia either, if enough coverage isn't there to get them past WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rathfelder is making the argument that a consultant being a candidate is an inherently noteworthy event, although I feel that is something that would have to be said by a reliable source to carry weight. Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The NHS has suddenly become a much more potent political issue and NHS staff standing for election becomes more noteworthy. Rathfelder (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:POLITICIAN BlueSalix (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL.-- danntm ^T _C 23:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.