- 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. Jenks24 ( talk) 17:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Peter James Madden ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is about a non-notable unsuccessful political candidate, the references given are either not reliable or irrelevant, and it pushes a POV in parts. I can't see much reason why this should be kept. – Hshook ( talk) 06:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:POLITICIAN. Stuartyeates ( talk) 10:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep but rewrite; the lead is weak. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 15:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: What a terrible article? How did this stay for so long with so many BLP violations? St Anselm ( talk) 18:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:TNT; what a monstrosity. On actual notability he fails WP:POLITICIAN, of course; there is perhaps a GNG argument here but this article sure isn't making it. Frickeg ( talk) 00:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Yes, I was thinking TNT myself. St Anselm ( talk) 01:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 07:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. This is essentially formatted like a résumé, contains inappropriate offsite links in the body text instead of internal wikilinks, lists an awful lot of YouTube videos in its contextless pile of unfootnoted "references", and doesn't make any especially strong claim of basic notability beyond being an unsuccessful political candidate. No prejudice against recreation in the future if a version which makes a better notability claim can be written and sourced properly, but this as written ain't cutting the mayonnaise. Bearcat ( talk) 14:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment -- He is certainly NN as an unelected politician. The only question may be whether he is notable as a minister of religion. My hunch is that he is not, but I do not know. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I suspect that he is generally notable, even if he doesn't meet the politician qualification. Unfortunately, notability doesn't matter in this case, as the quality of the article is such that WP:TNT applies. The closer should note that WP:TNT includes no prejudice against recreation. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, even without the awful political pamphlet content of the article, the guy is a political also-ran standing for a fringe party who got his five minutes of fame through some cringeworthy stunts that nobody paid all that much attention to. Doesn't meet POLITICIAN, as outlined above. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 12:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC).
- 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.