Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Gandolfi

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Proto::► 11:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gandolfi

Failed election candidate, got 43% of the vote in a seat in the South Australian election. No other notability. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep because being a public candidate in a public election gives this person notability, there is press about this, and a historical record of the election and of the candidates, this is something that is valuable to keep, even if it is only a stub, and who knows, maybe the person gets back in politics later Pernambuco 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pernambuco Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 03:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete review of the article does not provided any WP:N other then ran and lost. Jeepday 03:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above MiracleMat 05:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed political candidates are not inherently notable. No other assertion of notability. Resolute 06:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete just another NN failed candidate. Pete.Hurd 07:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the electoral district article. This is one way to improve the Electoral District articles, which, apart from this sort of thing, will never be more than stubs describing who is the member and where the electorate is. * JROBBO 10:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This article is about a politician and therefore has relevance on wikipedia.Tellyaddict 16:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:SK for criteria for Speedy Keeps; this is not that. That said, I think right now this article should be a delete right now -- WP:BIO indicates that you should be "Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage." Ol Pete may be that; probably a little research could uncover significant press coverage if he got over 40% of the vote. But, as the article stands now, there's no assertion of that level of notability. Deltopia 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep It seems to be well established elsewhere that major party candidates in a election for the legislative body are notable whether they win or lose. The doubts come in when the candidate is not from a major party. In any context I would regard getting over 40% of the vote as substantial & notable--at 5% or so it might be different. DGG 02:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#People notes that the precedents are that "Candidates for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability". Pete.Hurd 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a huuuuuge number of American politicians got AfD'd in the past 3 months because they lost their races. And these were mainstream party candidates running for significant office. A very clear consensus developed remarkably quickly that those articles should go. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he won no office, caused no significant news articles beyond "Peter is the candidate for", and made no more impact on the world than any other of the dozen new and failed candidates at each South Australian election. He's an ex-political advisor, current small businessman who got a local branch of a state party to endorse him for election....and lost. Nothing there is notable for an encyclopedia - noone else is writing about him and wikipedia is not a primary source - Peripitus (Talk) 11:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 06:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of articles about his candidacy so he passes WP:N and WP:V, even if it is only because he was a candidate. —siro χ o 22:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, losing an election doesn't make you notable. Lankiveil 02:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete nn. "because being a public candidate in a public election gives this person notability"? Shall we make tousands of articles or lists about candidates. 3000 candidates is Slovenia on last elections. Come on. --MaNeMeBasat 14:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If they all pass N/V requirements, as this failed candidate does, then sure (WP:NOT#PAPER). —siro χ o 20:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per first reason listed on this debate. Mathmo ^Talk 16:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, consensus in numerous AfD debates is that losing in an election is not a notable act. As such, this article that offers no other claim to notability, must go. Nuttah68 12:34, 4 February 2007 (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.