Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Hanley (2nd nomination)

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. –MuZemike 23:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Hanley

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. This article was previously kept at AFD in December 2009, as he was then a candidate in the British election of 2010; but he was unsuccessful, and past precedents have made clear that being a political candidate isn't by itself grounds for notability. In this case, although there are claims of notability in the article, I simply can't find any significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources, only directory reports (lists of candidates, lists of solicitors, etc). Robofish (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. In fact in my opinion the previous AfD was wrongly decided. Four people argued for delete and two for keep, but the "keep" arguments amounted, as I pointed out at the time, to (1) "he is not notable, but who knows: maybe one day he will be" and (2) "there is some secondary source coverage (but am not telling you where it is)". The closing admin should have given very little (if any) weight to these arguments, as the first is totally contrary to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the second is completely unverifiable. Meanwhile, the four who argued for deletion pointed out the lack of coverage in independent sources. (It is also worth noting that one of the "keeps" was really "keep until the election is over, and then delete if he loses", and he did lose, so we are left with only one person arguing for "keep", on the grounds that "I know there are sources", without telling us what they are.) I have now searched again for sources, and found his profiles on the web site of the company he works for and the web site of the political party he is a member of, Linkedin, MySpace, FaceBook, a blog post about him written by another member of the same party, one brief paragraph about him on the web site of "The Telegraph", which has such paragraphs on everyone who stands as a candidate in a British election, and so on. I found nothing whatsoever that could by any stretch be regarded as substantial coverage in independent sources. He fails to satisfy the general notability guideline, or any part of Wikipedia:Notability (people), including WP:POLITICIAN. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As a failed political candidate he is clearly NN (see WP:POLITICIAN). Secondary material (such as newspapers) can be found on many people, but that does not make them notable. Newspapers are WP:RS, though not necessarily the best sources. HOwever the fact that there are reliable sources on a subject does not make it/him notable. I suspect that the previous AFD was in the run up to the General election when we were willing to be a little kinder to candidates. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:JamesBWatson sums it up very neatly. Pburka (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article was created by Jamie Hanley himself and seems to be mostly for self-promotion (it was me who added the connected contributor tag). I don't really think it adds anything. mh. (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I launched the original AfD in 2009. I agree with the all views expressed so far. Dupont Circle (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2011 (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.