| Revision as of 04:28, 29 October 2006 editTJ Spyke (talk | contribs)93,344 edits →[]: Delete← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:24, 29 October 2006 edit undoDhartung (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers24,482 edits →[]: deleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| *'''Keep''' - per Raffles.] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 04:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' - per Raffles.] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 04:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' Non-notable political candidate. The article even says the comment was removed before it caused any real controversy. ] 04:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Non-notable political candidate. The article even says the comment was removed before it caused any real controversy. ] 04:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per TJ Spyke. "He is notable for something that never became notable" is not exactly a winning argument. --] | ] 05:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:24, 29 October 2006
Gary Anderton
The page history reveals that this began as an autobiography to promote the subject in his election bid. While the page has since been cleaned up, the subject is a non-notable candidate; standing in a seat he has no chance of winning. While I am happy to have pages for candidates with a reasonable chance of winning, Anderton needs a swing of around 25%. It is true that he briefly came to attention with his racist remarks, it did not blow up into a scandal, and he has since faded back into obscurity. Teiresias84 01:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Teiresias84 01:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The controversy means that he is more well-known than most candidates, and thus notable. If he fails to win a seat in parliament, and does nothing else to warrant inclusion, then perhaps he will cease to be notable, but he is certainly notable now. Raffles mk 03:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The racist remarks had the potential to cause a controversy, but they simply didn't - they were only mentioned in two newspaper articles at the time, and it was very quickly forgotten. He never emerged from obscurity, has no chance of winning, and this is persistently getting edited by what appears to be his campaign stuff, so it'd be nice to be able to put this one out of its misery. Rebecca 03:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - per Raffles.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable political candidate. The article even says the comment was removed before it caused any real controversy. TJ Spyke 04:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per TJ Spyke. "He is notable for something that never became notable" is not exactly a winning argument. --Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)