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. elected, WP:NPOL no longer an issue. KTC ( talk) 04:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Ian Blackford (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

My re-direct and then Prod reverted by article creator and main content contributor, User:Drchriswilliams, so I'm bringing this to AfD. Ian Blackford's main claim to fame and, it appears, the reason this article was created is because he is a candidate in the 2015 UK general election. WP:NPOL is clear that being a candidate does not make you notable. User:Drchriswilliams argues that "article is well referenced bio about a person who is not just an election candidate". There are 9 citations given:
1. Page not found.
2. Primary source, not secondary source. Not mainly about Blackford
3. Primary source, not secondary source. Not mainly about Blackford
4. Quotes Blackford, but not primarily about Blackford
5. Quotes Blackford, but not primarily about Blackford
6. Brief data listing about his two past candidacies
7. Quotes Blackford, but not primarily about Blackford
8. Quotes Blackford, but not primarily about Blackford
9. Candidate selection
WP:GNG is clear that citations have to provide "significant coverage" of the individual. These do not. Notability requires more than articles quoting an individual: they have to say something substantive about the individual. I favour speedy deletion, or rather a re-direct to the relevant constituency. Should Mr Blackford be elected, then material can be restored. Bondegezou ( talk) 15:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note User:Drchriswilliams has since helpfully expanded the article with additional citations, so my numbering in the above assessment is now wrong. I haven't been through the new content myself yet; others may judge whether it now demonstrates notability. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Note The stuff there looks like standard C.V.-type stuff, and doesn't establish notability. Not notable until (if!) he wins the election.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.138.233 ( talk) 18:41, 17 April 2015‎
• Keep I'm disappointed that the nominator went straight for suggesting deletion of this article, rather than adding some improvement tags. For anyone who hasn't realised, there is an election in the UK and there is some increased activity around articles with a political connection. I have added some further references (there are now over 30, mostly from newspapers and other secondary sources). I would disagree that it the suggestion about "cv-type stuff"- please look at the article, not simply the proposer's initial comments. The subject of this article has had a successful career as a banker and has been active as a member of civic society. There is no criteria for notability for a buisinessperson but I think he does meet WP:GNG through significant coverage in reliable secondary sources- he has been written about in multiple newspaper articles by journalists. He was also previously the treasurer of a political party who had a high-profile fallout with the party's leadership which had significant media coverage of this beyond the articles listed above, such as here: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. On this basis I think he may also meet WP:POLITICIAN He has also provided expert opinion about banking to political debate, such as here: [5], [6] and he was a high-profile person during Scotland's recent referendum. Just for clarity, I don't have any connection with the individual in this article, or their political party. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 18:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC) and I updated these comments while waiting for others to post. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 16:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep The coverage looks to be significant enough to establish notability now that the article has been expanded since it was nominated for deletion. The Observer article here and the BBC article here particularly persuade me of this. Indeed there is some in the Observer article about his earlier expulsion from the SNP and a period in the Labour party which could be used to expand the current article. The subject of the article is not just notable for his present election campaign, so an article can stand whether or not he is elected. Davewild ( talk) 18:23, 20 April 2015 (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.