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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Playford V

[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, as he does not appear to have ever actually won an election. Doesn't pass the GNG either; being the son of Thomas Playford IV doesn't make him notable in itself. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a mere minor party candidate at a state level, he clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. There is coverage of the guy but it is all related to the campaigns he has run. Subject to any compelling arguments to the contrary being presented below, I don't think there is good reason here to depart from the community set standard of WP:POLITICIAN. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. StAnselm (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not inherited, and does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:40, 7 April 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.