Deletion of John Bickley (UKIP)

Comment: as per , as is standard practice in these cases. If he's elected, an article will be created
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: If you think the Labour candidate is not notable, you can suggest that article be deleted. Whether we have an article for the Labour candidate (and there was an article for this person before he was ever the candidate) is a separate matter to whether this article should exist. No-one is saying that Bickley's candidacy is not important: it is, and information about him and his candidacy is on the by-election article page. The question is whether the best way to organise Wikipedia is to have a separate page about him as well. We don't usually do that, as explained at . If you think that approach is wrong, you could go to the Talk page there and put forward your position
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: I note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston McKenzie (2nd nomination) is now up. Might I also remind everyone of |the assumption of good faith
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: If the only notability is political campaigning, they don't qualify. This applies to all parties and all countries. I can see nothing worthy of an article in this case. Nolan is a border-line case - he definitely passes CSD A7 for significance, but as to notability, I'm not sure. But it is irrelevant anyway, because of . Each article stands or falls on its own merits
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: Per . He hasn't done anything notable. He's standing in a by-election, anyone can do that. This is an article about a non-notable person and it should be deleted. Also the title of this article is not in line with Wikipedia's standards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: to Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015, per . Bickley clearly fails  as the only coverage he gets is related to him being an election candidate, which is not notable in itself and there do not seem to be any other claims to notability. The creator's argument that there are "many more less relevant articles in Wiki" may well be true, but that's a textbook  argument and is not a reason for keeping this one
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:POLOUTCOMES||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)