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. There was a clear consensus that the page should be deleted. It is a long standing convention that being a failed election candidate confers no notability in itself unless established by reliable, secondary sources. There are two additional claims. The first is Young Entrepreneur of the Year. There is no documentation as to who made this award, nor for what geographic area and, in any case, the source The Poll Bludger does not meet WP:RS. Consequently it can't be considered notable. The second claim is that he "represented Australian Small Business Overseas at Apec". This is contained in a seminar resume, that are generally written by the participants, rather than in an editorial. A Google search shows no separate reference to the existence of this body. It is not specified how many other people represented the organisation nor how he was selected. These arguments failed to convince the Community of his notability and fail to convince me, either. TerriersFan (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuccessful candidate in an election ... I thought about trying to rewrite this, but can't find any sources. Blueboy96 20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I dimly recall a policy that losing candidates aren't notable. AnteaterZot 20:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable candidate - any claim to notability would rest solely on his political candidacy. Refer to the AfD on Gavin Priestly (as well as Euryalus's very good points further down this AfD). Orderinchaos 07:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:BIO as a politician not having held any office -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 23:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - certainly as an unsucessful candidate fails WP:Bio although note was close to be successful and may yet be successful in the future. Young Entrepreneur of the Year confers independant notability.--Matilda ^talk 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can anyone enlighten me on who awards the "Young Entrepreneur of the Year" and on what basis? This might be a valid claim to notability if it was offered by an independent authority on a genuinely widespread basis (eg state or national). However I can find no record of this award on either a Victorian or Australian level. Accounting firm Ernst & Young offer an "Entrepreneur of the Year" award for which Southwick was once guest speaker, and a company called the "Micro Business Network" awards a "Young Entrepreneur of the year" but do not seem to publish entry criteria, selection method or past winners so I cannot determine if this what Southwick won. Anyone know? Euryalus (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume it is the same award that Ernst and Young offer, however they have sponsored it only since 2001 and have no earlier records. I can find no record of the award winners earlier than that - I suspect that this is a failing of internet archiving and change of sponsorship rather than any indication of a false claim. I am prepared to take the assertion he has won as per say the RMIT Union site and prepared to assume the award is a continuation of any previous award. --Matilda ^talk 00:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A problem - Ernst & Young offer an "Entrepreneur of the Year" but not a "Young Entrepreneur of the Year". Unless this is an odd typo (he won the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year) then this can't be the award. The fact that the award isn't listed anywhere other than in mirrors of Southwick's own biography and on the site of a comparatively unknown business network makes me doubt whether it is notable enough to justify this article, if we assume that his candidacy in Melbourne Ports isn't sufficient. Euryalus (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable election candidate. If he is successful in the future, then the article can be considered then. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This candidate made huge headlines when he ran for the 2004 Federal Election. Depsite not winning the election, he as a candidate made the electorate of Melbourne Ports a must-see on election night because it was the first time in Federal political history where two Jews have contested each other in the same seat. It made headlines and even made it on the 7.30 report. Also it should be noted that Southwick ran as a candidate for the Victorian Upper House in 2006 and was very close to winning the seat almost ousting Evan Thornley who was in Bracks' views one of his star candidates. Southwick lost from memory c. 1500 votes. Also one has also got to remember that Southwick is quite well known in the Melbourne Ports community and therefore got have an article in his honour. If his article should be deleted because he was a losing candidate, then why not delete Kerrie Tucker, Sarah someone Young Greens from South Australia, Diane Teasdale, etc. 06:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CatonB (talk • contribs)

Re first point - the main problem is almost none of this got reported in reliable sources. Re second: Kerrie Tucker was a long-time Territorian politician so was notable well before her run at Federal politics, Sarah Hanson-Young actually did win (or is almost certain to pending counting) so is notable for being an elected Federal politician, and quite a few others probably should be considered for deletion now that the election is over. However this is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and nothing here actually circumvents the WP:BIO notability guideline. Orderinchaos 10:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys - thanks for your additional comments - pls also note I did read on Andy Landeryou's blogsite that in the State Electorate of Caulfield there is speculation that David Southwick might be the next Liberal candidate for Caulfield in the 2010 Victorian State Elections. Caulfield is a safe Liberal Party seat. So I guess it is worth having him on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CatonB (talk • contribs) 03:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation on a blog is not a basis for anything encyclopaedic. There is speculation the editor of the West Australian will run for Cottesloe, especially now that Colin Barnett has announced his retirement as at the 2009 election - but the only reason I know is blogs and friends in political circles - one certainly couldn't write on any related article until much closer to the time. (Also, don't forget these people have to go through a preselection - and look at some of the NSW state preselections last time to see how uncertain some of those can be). Orderinchaos 11:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Mr. Landeryou's blog, while entertaining, hardly meets Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Even if he was the preselected candidate, it would not change my opinion on his notability until he was elected (although it is fair to say a significant number of editors disagree with this view). Of course my views on the notability of this subject are without prejudice to re-creation should he meet WP:BIO in the future. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, twice unsuccessful political candidate. Nothing to see here. Lankiveil (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete -- fails various points in the notability guidelines for biographies:

1)Failing to win a seat in Parliament is not notable;

2)Being named "young Entrepreneur of the Year" by an otherwise unknown business group is not notable;

3)Coverage in reliable sources is either not independent of the subject (eg his own websites and RMIT bio) or mentions the individual in the context of a notable event (the election) rather than in their own right;

4) No independent biographies and no evidence of an enduring cotnribution to the historical record. WP:N makes clear that notability is not temporary - can anyone recall who stood unsuccessfully for Melbourne Ports a decade ago? Will anyone remember Southwick's candidacy in ten years time?

5) Re specific statements above - two candidates of the same religion standing in the same seat might be interesting trivia but it is not a claim to enduring notability. Being well known in a local community is original research unless there are reliable sources, and even then does not justify the article (plenty of people are well known in their communities and don't need a Wikipedia entry). Lastly, speculation about future candidacies is just speculation - possible future notability is not enough. Recreate this article if he is selected and wins. Before that occasion, there are no apparent grounds to keep this current piece. Euryalus (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a failed political candidate with no evidence of any other means of meeting notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2007 (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.