The result was no consensus. About half of the people commenting think that the sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:GNG, the other half does not. Since that is something about which people will in good faith disagree, this means we don't have a consensus to delete. Sandstein 07:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an almost-identical version of an article previously deleted ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lee (British politician). I have placed a copy of the old article here for anyone who wants to compare. It looks to me like there have not been significant additions (but a couple refs and sentences have been added, so I'm taking it to AfD instead of speedily deleting. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
[The article creator] is the man who is maintaining the page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Epeefleche/Nicholas_Beale. He states that he knows George Lee personally somewhere in the history. He’s also, I assume, a Conservative Party member as he’s having input into policy documents, which he didn’t disclose:
He has since added a series of references in an attempt to increase the 'notability' of the article. However, these all refer to a single press push from Conservative Headquarters, and do not as such constitute notability - is the man who wins the lottery today notable because of his momentary press coverage?
I see no grounds to maintain the article, and I consider Nicholas Beale to be operating in the face of an editorial decision as part of a personal interest pursuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinloo ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
A. He has yet to be ellected to parliment (there will be a lot of PPC's), that covers a all PPC's. B. He may (the source does not seem to work, so I will tag it) have set up the BPA (should this indead be the case then I would change my vote to keep, that would make him notalbe). Slatersteven ( talk) 18:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. About half of the people commenting think that the sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:GNG, the other half does not. Since that is something about which people will in good faith disagree, this means we don't have a consensus to delete. Sandstein 07:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an almost-identical version of an article previously deleted ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lee (British politician). I have placed a copy of the old article here for anyone who wants to compare. It looks to me like there have not been significant additions (but a couple refs and sentences have been added, so I'm taking it to AfD instead of speedily deleting. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC) reply
[The article creator] is the man who is maintaining the page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Epeefleche/Nicholas_Beale. He states that he knows George Lee personally somewhere in the history. He’s also, I assume, a Conservative Party member as he’s having input into policy documents, which he didn’t disclose:
He has since added a series of references in an attempt to increase the 'notability' of the article. However, these all refer to a single press push from Conservative Headquarters, and do not as such constitute notability - is the man who wins the lottery today notable because of his momentary press coverage?
I see no grounds to maintain the article, and I consider Nicholas Beale to be operating in the face of an editorial decision as part of a personal interest pursuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinloo ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
A. He has yet to be ellected to parliment (there will be a lot of PPC's), that covers a all PPC's. B. He may (the source does not seem to work, so I will tag it) have set up the BPA (should this indead be the case then I would change my vote to keep, that would make him notalbe). Slatersteven ( talk) 18:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC) reply