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The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Shearer

[edit]
David Shearer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Withdrawn please close as keep. - I also missed the NZ-er of the year bit. I've rewritten the lede appropriately. never-elected candidate for political office. Looking at his biography, I don't think he would satisfy notability and warrant an article if you removed the fact that he is standing for an election. Therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. This policy was strictly enforced for the 2008 general election. By-election should be no different. dramatic (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support; (meaning delete) as per what I said here. I think if he had been a Special Representative as opposed to a Deputy Special Representative in Iraq then he would be notable, but I guess that's up for debate - do any other Deputy Special Representatives have pages? Mattlore (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NB: I presume we can just get an admin to restore the page if he wins in less than a months time?
I'm going to change to Keep, along similar lines as gadfium. He is a clear front runner, has a background that could be arguably notable in its own right, and anyway we can revisit the issue if he does lose the by-election. Mattlore (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other Deputy Special Representatives with articles are Christopher Alexander (diplomat), Bo Asplund, Oluseyi Bajulaiye, Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, Leila Zerrougui. (I haven't looked at them thoroughly - they may have other claims to notability too.) Nurg (talk) 07:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree he does not meet the notability criteria at present, and am thus compelled to say Delete. However, in this byelection four other candidates have Wikipedia articles because they are current or former list MPs, and my gut-level feeling is that to delete this article is to disadvantage this candidate by some small factor (although the presence of an article is unlikely to make a difference to the byelection result). Accordingly, I would be most interested in seeing solid reasons why this article should not be deleted.-gadfium 01:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • His major opponent, Melissa Lee, said in an unguarded moment today that she doesn't expect to win. I think the rules for by-elections can be different than those for general elections. As Shearer is now highly likely to win, I think the article should be Kept. If something changes by the time of the by-election and he doesn't win, we can revisit the matter.-gadfium 06:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I missed the bit where the New Zealand Herald named him "New Zealander of the Year" in 1992. Now Strong Keep, regardless of whether he wins the by-election.-gadfium 08:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if those other four articles are turned into electioneering material (i.e. any more than a single line at the end of the article mentioning the candidacy), they need to be reverted. This article is very much an advert and needs a severe rewrite if kept. (I considered ((tl:db-spam)) but wasn't sure if it would get deleted on that criterion). dramatic (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now; if necessary, revisit the matter after the election.Daveosaurus (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has a high probability of winning, especially after Melissa's interesting theories on motorways. Also this is just one article compared to many in 2008.F (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its a good idea to keep an article because someone thinks the candidate will win. In the absence of additional sources showing notability I think delete. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most career details seem to be notable enough and described with NPOV. While it is clear that the by-election has been the impetus for the creation of the article, it would be fallacious to reverse that logic. The by-election is more prominent and thus all candidates are more notable because of the seat's previous MP, PM Helen Clark. 203.97.98.36 (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (per XLerate above) so meets WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN is thus irrelevent. -- Avenue (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2009 (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.
More