Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Beales

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. I understand that it is likely there might be some disagreement about this closure but I see a consensus to Keep this article. Suggestions of changing the scope of the article can be discussed on the article talk page or by BOLD edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Beales

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

As a general rule, losing candidates in elections are not regarded as notable. I suspect this article was created with the expectation that he would become an MP. PatGallacher (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Poor reason for deletion - seems to have WP:SIGCOV and looks like it passes WP:GNG, which is surely better than the "he's not very important" argument Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An WP:ATD could be a redirect to 2023 Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election. Curbon7 (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simply because the article started as a re-direct to a different by-election, and there is now another appropriate redirect target. If you have multiple redirect targets, the default is to keep the article to mention both. Obviously if Beales had had 500 more votes, this would be a snow keep, but it isn't. See David Kaff as another example. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article started not as a re-direct to a different by-election. It was a redirect to 2022 Camden London Borough Council election#Camden Square where Beales was elected as councillor. The same style redirect was added for Tuckwell just before. The article was not created with the expectation that he ‘would’ become an MP, Tuckwell had been created just before. JamesVilla44 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I have had a look at the page history, and it was expanded from a redirect when he became the candidate in the Uxbridge by-election. PatGallacher (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E, known only for the bielection that he didn't win (the amount of coverage of his council work is minimal). Whilst [1] has significant coverage of him, most of the other sources do not, meaning that this article doesn't look to pass WP:GNG. Most of the coverage is of the bielection with mentions about him, which isn't significant coverage about him. Redirecting is inappropriate since there are multiple targets. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Poor reason for deletion. There are many candidates whose election losses did not trigger deletion of their articles, e.g. the article on the previous Labour candidate for Uxbridge & South Ruislip Ali Milani still exists despite the fact that he also lost the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.64.82 (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not the best rebuttal - Milani has had sources write about him for a couple of things, whereas Danny's is all about him running for a political position. Skip that in Milani's and his notability is iffy. Skip that for Danny's and there's nothing left. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now Given we are less than 18 months away from the next United Kingdom general election and he is pretty likely to be elected then, it feels wasteful not to keep the work that has been done now until and unless he fails to get elected next year. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 20:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPECULATION isn't a reason to keep this. If he does win in 18 months, this could always be undeleted then. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the article is made primarily about him as a councillor. He is notable as a high-profile councillor with significant coverage of him in that role. I oppose the logic above that he should have an article as a candidate in Uxbridge which seems to be speculation. So if the article is kept about him as a councillor, which I can help with, then keep it. Fosse1884 (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2023 (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.