- 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 keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anas Sarwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
One of many articles that has crept into Wikipedia on British prospective parliamentary candidates. WP:POLITICIAN does not attribute notability to candidates, and there is no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". In this case there is some local interest but predominantly because of his relationship to the standing MP - but notability should be independent, not inherited. I42 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Whilst candidacy itself doesn't confer notability, the fact that he has secured a nomination in such a safe seat suggests that he has a prominent political career ahead of him, and that he's most likely going to meet notability as an MP next year. Combine this with the coverage he's managed to get (albeit with the help of his father's connections) and I think this just scrapes in. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. The article can always be resurrected if he wins next year. Wikipedia is famously not a crystal ball, and cannot anticipate the results of elections. —Wereon (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete w/o prejudice per Wereon. If he is elected, simply ask an administrator to restore the article or re-create it yourself. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Keep per Jmundo. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep I would argue for inclusion of this article and all other article regarding parliamentary candidates for reasons outlined here ZTomane1 (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of current notability. If he is elected, then he should have an article. Warofdreams talk 02:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm surprised that nobody in this discussions has talked about the 3 articles from the Daily Record and The Herald "that address the subject directly in detail" meeting WP:GNG. I don't know about the future but sources are available to establish notability now.--Jmundo 03:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the nomination: "In this case there is some local interest but predominantly because of his relationship to the standing MP - but notability should be independent, not inherited". I42 (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, notability is not inherited but established by independent sources.--Jmundo 20:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jmundo. Independant sources have established his notability. CanadianNine 22:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - safe seat, where the selection by the dominant party is the de facto election. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 21 April 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.