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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC) reply

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

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

BLP of failed perennial micro-party candidate for office from a party with zero national or local representation. Doesn't come close to passing WP:NPOL. He fails to achieve "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". AusLondonder ( talk) 03:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Auslander, I, personally, find it very confusing that the The Dominion Post (Wellington), the broadsheet daily in the capital of New Zealand and one of the archipelago's leading papers, has a website misleadingly called "stuff" - and so cited in this article's references. I suspect that this misled you into asserting that Baker lacks RS, independent coverage. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 03:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder ( talk) 03:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Head of minor national party in New Zealand and significant player in New Zealand politics despite the fact that his family values party attracts less that 5% of kiwis, according to a INDEPTH profile of him that ran last month in the Dominion Post here: [1]. Granted, the article needs improvement, but it can be improved with coverage in arecles such as What happened to the Conservative Party? in last week's New Zealand Herald. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Source: Life after Colin: Does the Conservative Party have a chance in 2017? [2] 19 August 2017. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep There's enough there to meet GNG. Schwede 66 18:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep as meets GNG NealeFamily ( talk) 03:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Fails WP:NPOL but passes WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 01:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment re sources This article has twelve sources. The first three sources are from the Electoral Commission and are candidate listings and results. The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh sources are coverage of the internal affairs and leadership of the Conservative Party - not Baker. The eight source is a press release from the Conservative Party. Source nine, ten and eleven are again either routine coverage of the internal affairs and leadership of the Conservative Party or election coverage. The last source is routine election coverage of Baker in his role as a local candidate for office. These sources come absolutely nowhere near meeting the requirements of WP:GNG. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Actually, several of the article do have significant discussions of Baker, beware WP:NOTROUTINE: "Be careful not to make WP:ROUTINE mean something that it does not. Just because a news article is written about a pre-planned event does not make it 'routine' coverage." Essay gives this example: "Once every four years, the United States holds an election for President. These elections are "routinely" covered by every news outlet and the event is a "pre-planned event" as a part of the United States Constitution. However, that does not mean that this coverage would be excluded from notability discussions because of the WP:ROUTINE guideline." E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:56, 2 October 2017 (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.