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. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Lee (British politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

The first time this page was nominated, it was deleted. The second time, there was no consensus. A key part of the claim for Lee's notability then was that he was supposedly the first individual of Chinese ethnicity to become a Westminster candidate for a major party in the UK and could become the first Chinese MP. In edits to the page, I've already shown that that claim was mistaken -- he was one of 8 Chinese candidates for major parties and wasn't even the first nominated. Comments in that deletion discussion suggested this was worth re-visiting after the election, and we've now had the General Election. Lee came a distant third in his constituency. A third-place former political candidate is not notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Note also that the creator and main author of this page has acknowledged a major COI. Bondegezou (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I do know George - but that does not constitute a "major COI" and I think the page is pretty NPoV. FWIW it seems that the AfD Nom may be motivated by political hostility, which could be seen as COI as well. There was plenty of WP:RS media coverage and this has continued after the last AfD debate so by our guidelines he should be kept. Political hostility should not play a part. NBeale (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to acknowledge NBeale's work to try to make this a good article. He acknowledges a conflict of interest, as was discussed in the 2nd AfD nomination when he chose to bow out of the discussion because of it. I will not quibble over whether it is a "major" COI and have struck that word from my opening statement! However, nearly every reference in the article relates to Lee's candidacy at the General Election, where he came a distant third. The argument presented then was that Lee could be the first Chinese MP in the House of Commons: he isn't and didn't come close and wasn't even the first Chinese candidate for a major party (although I'm sure NBeale was acting in good faith when he wrote that he was). WP:POLITICIAN is the obvious guide for us here and Lee clearly fails under those criteria. I also suggest that WP:ONEVENT is relevant here: nearly all the citations given refer to Lee's candidacy, so any relevant material should be re-directed to Holborn and St Pancras. One could find multiple local newspaper reports and occasional national newspaper reports about numerous losing candidates at the General Election, but WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ONEVENT stop the proliferation of articles. I do live in the Holborn and St Pancras constituency and I didn't vote for Lee; I don't think this constitutes a COI, particularly not after the election has happened. I have never met Mr Lee; he sounds like an interesting man and I'd be more than happy to meet him! Bondegezou (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. I agree that not every 3rd placed candidate should be considered Notable, but by any standards Lee has an exceptional life story, and this has been noted in many WP:RSs But let's see what others think. NBeale (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete AS I recall the last AFD failed because he was a PPC and we should wait untill he has elected, he has not been elected. The main argument being keep at this time untill he wins or loses.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: i think there's enough "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to pass WP:BIO. WP:POLITICIAN point 3 says unelected candidates can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion. Qwfp (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But what about WP:ONEVENT? Nearly every reliable secondary source in the article is about his candidacy, so WP:ONEVENT would argue that any usable material is re-directed to somewhere like Holborn and St Pancras. The couple of other sources only mention Lee in passing. Bondegezou (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment But he is no longer a candidate as there is no election, at this time he is only a possible candidate. To be a candidate there has to be an election to contest. For example his p0age as a tory candidate no longer exits. It is WP:Crystal to assume he may be re-selceted.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The consensus is that failed Parliamentary candidates are NN (unless otherwise notable). The previous AFDs were only kept (or kept as redirect) pending the election. We now need to cull articles on failed candidates. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being Chinese in Britain is (thankfully) not notable. Nothing in the article suggests he meets notability criteria and he fails WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I argued to keep at the previous AFD, but only because it was conceivable he might win election to Parliament. As he hasn't, I don't think there's enough here to pass WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. The coverage is limited and transitory; essentially, this is a WP:BLP1E candidate, with no evidence of lasting notability. Robofish (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per reasons expressed at prior AfD. Notability is not fleeting.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are only two citations in the article from prior to the run-up to the election. One of these (The Independent, 1998) appears to be only a mention of Lee rather than an article about Lee. The other (Police Review, 1996) is not available online and one would suppose it to be a specialist publication. Almost the entire content of the article comes from coverage of his candidacy. Bondegezou (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And this was why he was nomianted the first time. He did not meet notability, he was only a PPC. The only reason it was retained was the assumption he might win and that then he would be notable, but only becasue he might be (not that he was) notable. He has ow lost, so he is not notable. At the very least we will need a rename, as he is ot a politicain any more, and certainly not notable as one.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2010 (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.