Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reginald Logan Rait (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 delete. Daniel (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Logan Rait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Being the youngest loser in the 1923 UK General Election doesn't do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, and a search yielded no results for WP:GNG. Alas, he only needed 48 more votes to be notable. Curbon7 (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Missed it by that much. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as being the youngest candidate at the time is not in itself notable in a long-term (he was nearly 22, so not extraordinarily young or with a claim of being the youngest ever election candidate). There are actually a fair few hits on newspapers.com but very much run-of-the-mill reporting of him being the youngest in that election and all as a passing mention. He didn't appear to have any notable political career and if the only claim is that he nearly won a seat as a young-un, I don't think that will suffice. Someone older at the time, even slightly, would not have an article in similar circumstances. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We accept all members of legislatures as notable, because legislatures do things that are important. It is not the winning the election that makes someone notable, it is the seating in the legislature. Members of legislatures that are appointed by means other than election, but actually have functions of making laws and the like, are still notable. The coverage here is not significant, and we do not directly say "youngest x is notable", we follow significant coverage, and are not a newspaper, so we take a broad view, and not just the "youngest x in this election".John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article seems only to exist because he was the youngest candidate at the 1923 general election, but as others have made clear this does not give him the kind of notability that would merit an article. In the absence of any evidence of other claims for notability, this would seem a clear cut case. Dunarc (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2021 (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.