Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Hyslop

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. A clear consensus for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Hyslop

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

No claim to notability besides third-party political candidacy, should have been speedied but tag was removed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject does not appear to meet
WP:BASIC is met have not been found. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

delete political candidate that doesn't meet WP:BIO .LibStar (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP, not at all convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, super-duper easy one this time, no question of notability. Frickeg (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP, written even more blatantly than usual as a campaign brochure rather than an encyclopedia article, of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office — which is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia by itself: if you cannot demonstrate and source that he was already notable enough for an article before running as a candidate, then he has to win the election to get an article. Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for lack of notability. Being a candidate in a federal election is a claim of significance that is enough to survive
WP:G11, but still fails the basic notability criteria. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom, and I'd add that a Green standing for a Liberal-held House of Reps seat is highly unlikely to be elected so he's not likely to become notable as a result of the election. Nick-D (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2016 (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.