Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston McKenzie (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 keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winston McKenzie

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO as he has never won an election. According to WP:POLOUTCOMES, "Losing candidates for office below the national level are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated", and as far as I can tell the only notable sources of him are just news reports about his changing parties or running for office - given that he lost, I don't think he can pass the notability guidelines. RailwayScientist (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 41 citations in the article. Most of the coverage about him is as a (repeatedly) failed candidate, and candidates do not generally meet WP:NPOL. However, he has also had some significant roles in UKIP, a major, national party, which counts for something, and there are a few sources about him prior to his political career (albeit most of these are about the McKenzie brothers as a whole). His main claim to fame may well be an unsuccessful political career, but it is one that has attracted its share of publicity along the way. He is a figure with some notoriety in British politics. Bondegezou (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with everything above. He has a reasonable degree of notability as a boxer and as a perennial candidate and also his spokesperson role in UKIP. None of these on their own would necessarily make him notable enough, but I would suggest taken together they qualify him for an article. Frinton100 (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's received significant attention despite (or perhaps because of) his repeated losses, thus meeting the notability requirement of WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with things stated here, he is a notable candidate who has had roles in a major UK political party (UKIP) and this article should stay up. (Z2a (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, I withdraw my request and agree with the people who have demonstrated his notability. Sorry! RailwayScientist (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2015 (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.