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 no consensus. Dennis Brown - 23:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Longley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The creeper2007Talk! 22:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL speaks about presumed notability and does not be need be considered if the subject passes Wikipedia:Basic, as is clearly stated in that policy.Djflem (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'd have heaps of non-notable politicians scraping through on basic coverage, which isn't the case. That's why we have WP:NOT, to get rid of articles like this one where someone's not really mentioned much and always in the context of a fringe party. SportingFlyer T·C 17:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that claim is not why "we" at Wikipedia have NOT: This article is not a dictionary entry; is not a publication of original thought: is not a soapbox or means of promotion, not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site; is not a directory listing; is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal; is not a crystal ball making prediecations; is not a newspaper article; is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This AfD certainly shows there's an an attempt to censor.Djflem (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know what I'm talking about - he fails NOTNEWS and PROMO and arguably NOTINHERITED since all of the articles discuss him in the context of the party (on top of the GNG failure). SportingFlyer T·C 16:51, 4 July 2020 (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.