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. MBisanztalk 14:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Not really a need for an AfD - I had been planning to speedy it as soon as the results are officially declared by the South Australian electoral commissioner tomorrow, and I don't think it would be terribly controversial to do so. The reason for waiting - his opponent is still not formally elected until the results are declared. (Read as deleteconditional upon the declaration being read.has now been read)
Orderinchaos 11:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete for reasons given by others. Speedy would be OK too. Note the nominator is the article creator and only meaningful editor.
Peter Ballard (
talk) 11:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment Certainly not a speedy deletion as CSD A7 is not applicable. A claim to significance is clearly made and multiple independent sources are provided to support it. A deletion close to this discussion is probably appropriate if and when the result is declared and a successful rescue campaign is not undertaken. AfD gives that process a chance; certainly several other unsuccessful candidate articles have been saved in the past. --
Mattinbgn\talk 11:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment The formal request for recount has been denied, and the Liberals have said they will not take it to the Court of Disputed Returns, and have formally conceded.
Timeshift (
talk) 11:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. Failed political candidate, does not meet
WP:POLITICIAN.
WWGB (
talk) 12:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep when a candidate for a national election comes this close, there ought to be enough sources. There are, in fact, 3 of them in the article, even now. The rule on politicians does not say that the mere fact of losing an election supersedes the GNG for people. DGG (
talk) 22:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Noting it was not a national election - it was for a seat in a state parliament.
Orderinchaos 06:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment -
WP:POLITICIAN, for an article to be kept on an unelected political candidate, it requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". There is nothing noteable on Terry Boylan, aside from his candidacy.
Timeshift (
talk) 23:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:POLITICIAN; there are endless precedents for this. There's no gong for coming close or almost getting there.
Frickeg (
talk) 01:51, 30 January 2009 (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.