Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Boyd Barrett (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The result was Speedy close - Nomination withdrawn without delete vote. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 10:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Boyd Barrett[edit]

Firstly, I don't believe the subject meets notability criteria just by being a party member and standing (unsuccessfully) for election. I also don't believe that the page contains enough information to assert notability, even if notability existed. If the party member had won his electoral seat, then he should be included, but in this case, it should not. Irishjp 12:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this was just a case of an article about an unsuccessful candidate in an election, I would think that deletion would be appropriate. But as pointed out in last month's AFD, the subject of the article does appear in, and is reported on, in the Irish media for other reasons on a regular basis. The article needs to be expanded, but the subject does meet notability criteria. Cumulative notabilty, perhaps, but notability. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - simply due to a keep afd one month ago. Fix the article if you don't like it, additional attempts at deletion encourage an evaluation of bad faith on nominators part. --Rocksanddirt 22:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sinéad Cusack , not enough notability and content for an individual article.--JForget 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:HEY - numerous reliable third party sources now added. Skomorokh ^incite 02:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly sufficient sources now. Had he won, he would automatically have been considered notable, but losing doesn't make him automatically non-notable. if major national media regard him as a spokesman for tis point of view, he's notable. DGG (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - now that article has been updated with enough information to assert notability. In response to Rocksanddirt,I had no involvement in the previous AfD and am fully entitled to nominate again if I think nothing has been done to significantly add any notability to an article in some time. Irishjp 09:54, 14 August 2007 (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.