The result was delete as failing WP:N. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi - apologies if I've misunderstod but, I am proposing to ""delete"".
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donal_Blaney
This guy was a junior official in a political party ten years ago, then got investigated for racism. Definitively un-notable. Given the detail on the CV, it seems a fairly obvious vanity article. Who else would know when this guy was head of Southampton Young Tories?
So, yeah -- Delete - oh, and looking at the previous log ""watch for sockpuppets"". Pistachiones( talk) 00:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Thw fact that that isn't obvious suggests we still ""delete"". The Young Britons Foundation has a page -mention him as founder there. I'm quit surprised the Young Britons Foundation has a page - let alone its officers! This guy, bless 'im, clearly isn't wikinotable. Papyrus - and if you're listing him as a "Television" or "business" person, doubly so!
[n.b. - edited because I forgot to log in...] Pistachiones ( talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
- "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." <-- he clearly fails on this test. - "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence" <-- he clearly fails on this one, especially since this needs "more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic". The Hague investigation - about which nothing was heard, and which happened nine years ago - does not qualify him.
Being chairman of an insignficant institution which he founded obviously does not justify wikinotability. It's a complete non-entity. Pistachiones ( talk) 07:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Any other thoughts? We have two 'deletes' and one 'keep' thus far. I am, of course, biased, but I do think the argument for keeping doesn't hold water. Pistachiones ( talk) 22:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep per notability found. Article does need major rewrite to fall in line with WP:BIO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. A google search does not indicate notability. all it does is show someone with his name exists, and one of them is the head of a non-notable organisation. no-one has contested that he is the head of YB, so what does the search prove? Being mentioned in articles about the organisation is not non-trivial coverage. there are specific guidelines indicating criteria of whether a politician is notable enough for an article, and he doesn't pass them. Yobmod ( talk) 13:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as failing WP:N. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi - apologies if I've misunderstod but, I am proposing to ""delete"".
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Donal_Blaney
This guy was a junior official in a political party ten years ago, then got investigated for racism. Definitively un-notable. Given the detail on the CV, it seems a fairly obvious vanity article. Who else would know when this guy was head of Southampton Young Tories?
So, yeah -- Delete - oh, and looking at the previous log ""watch for sockpuppets"". Pistachiones( talk) 00:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Thw fact that that isn't obvious suggests we still ""delete"". The Young Britons Foundation has a page -mention him as founder there. I'm quit surprised the Young Britons Foundation has a page - let alone its officers! This guy, bless 'im, clearly isn't wikinotable. Papyrus - and if you're listing him as a "Television" or "business" person, doubly so!
[n.b. - edited because I forgot to log in...] Pistachiones ( talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
- "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." <-- he clearly fails on this test. - "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence" <-- he clearly fails on this one, especially since this needs "more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic". The Hague investigation - about which nothing was heard, and which happened nine years ago - does not qualify him.
Being chairman of an insignficant institution which he founded obviously does not justify wikinotability. It's a complete non-entity. Pistachiones ( talk) 07:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Any other thoughts? We have two 'deletes' and one 'keep' thus far. I am, of course, biased, but I do think the argument for keeping doesn't hold water. Pistachiones ( talk) 22:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep per notability found. Article does need major rewrite to fall in line with WP:BIO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. A google search does not indicate notability. all it does is show someone with his name exists, and one of them is the head of a non-notable organisation. no-one has contested that he is the head of YB, so what does the search prove? Being mentioned in articles about the organisation is not non-trivial coverage. there are specific guidelines indicating criteria of whether a politician is notable enough for an article, and he doesn't pass them. Yobmod ( talk) 13:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply