Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Hanley

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Hanley

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

Not notable, this person is one of over 2,000 people standing for election at the 2010 UK General Election. That to me doesn't make him notable as per Wikipedia rules. It's also self promotion the subject appears to be the person who created the article, user LawReport. If he gets elected, then he may be worthy of an entry. Until that point, I say he's not Dupont Circle (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. More notable than the average local politician (e.g. he was an official observer at the Palestinian election), but I can only find minimal, local press coverage. I feel he's insufficiently notable, but could be swayed if more significant press coverage could be found. Pburka (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- He is the prospective Labour Parliamentary candidate in a labour-held seat. If we delete this article now and he wins the election (now due within six months), we will need to produce one within the next six months, if he wins. If he loses the election (or decides not to stand), that will be the time to delete the article. With an election pending, we are inevitably going to get a lot of candidate biographies. I would suggest a mass cull of unsuccessful candidates, just after the election. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am seeing a good amount of secondary source coverage. Plus, Peterkingiron (talk · contribs) makes a pretty good point as well. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you list some of the secondary source coverage, particularly any from the national or international press? Pburka (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability: none given, and I have not found any. Note that "he is not notable, but who knows: maybe one day he will be" is not a justification for keeping an article: that is what Peterkingiron is saying. Likewise "I am seeing a good amount of secondary source coverage (but am not telling you where it is)" is not a justification for keeping. This is one of a string of articles all created by an account which has been used only for creating articles about Morrish Solicitors and their partners and employees, and, in my opinion, is spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I gave some thought as to whether his membership of the Labour National Policy Forum should sway it, but with so little coverage in GNews it doesn't quite make it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:12, 23 December 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.