Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Eyre

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. Evil saltine (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Eyre

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

Non-notable British politician. Has never held elected office (above the local council level), and as he isn't standing as a candidate in the next election, is unlikely to in the near future. A search for sources only finds trivial coverage relating to his various failed elections, and no references that would justify keeping this article under WP:BIO. Robofish (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur pretty much entirely with the above. There's coverage of him, yes, but it's coverage of him as a candidate in an election that he lost, rather than coverage of any other part of his career. Shimgray | talk | 22:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - non-notable person. - Ahunt (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think that repeated failed candidates in general elections are minor notable persons. But, for me, a candidate from a major party in a by-election is always notable. If he is notable enough to be listed in our constituency and by-election articles, this page is notable enough to stay, as it points the reader to other elections where he also stood. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Hroðulf, and also find the bio subject's sojourn in Ireland to be of interest. JamesMLane t c 02:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think a failed candidacy in Ireland makes him notable? NTK (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep dr.ef.tymac (talk)

Why? "Keep" contributes nothing to the discussion for consensus. NTK (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Birmingham Hodge Hill by-election, 2004. If we do count candidates for by-elections as more notable than the usual Parliamentary candidates (and I'm still not sure I'd count as candidate who never stood a chance in that constituency), it's still a WP:BLP1E. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Chris Neville-Smith. This one fails WP:POLITICIAN pretty cleanly. Coming in 4th in an election doesn't qualify somebody for autonotability. Ray^Talk 11:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The candidate clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. He stood for election and failed to win and there is no coverage in reliable sources or other notable events which would qualify him for an article here. Valenciano (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Chris Neville. Hasn't received the significant coverage needed to have a bio page. Fences&Windows 23:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failed candidate bios do not necessarily belong in election articles if the candidacy itself is not notable. Without sources to demonstrate he has done something notable, an unsuccessful repeat candidate and councilman is not notable enough for inclusion. If no consensus is reached for deletion, then some be BOLD and redirect. NTK (talk) 20:18, 15 September 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.