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. This was just at AfD. The correct venue for challenging the recent deletion is WP:DRV. I am deleting it again as biography of living persons enforcement. This article as recreated violated WP:ONEEVENT, in addition to the reasons I stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (2nd nomination). To write a biography there must be enough verified information available in independent, reliable sources to write a fair, balanced article about this person's life. The recent issues with Wikipedia should not receive grossly undue weight, as happened with this article's recreation. It was a virtual attack page. Jehochman ^Talk 08:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Boothroyd[edit]

David Boothroyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The individual does not meet our criteria for inclusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this individual has been noted in several reliable sources concerning his political activities in Westminster and is now receiving attention for his activities on Wikipedia as well. The article existed for several years until he stepped down from ArbCom and we should not delete an article to "protect one of our own" now that new media coverage is taking place. TAway (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is the article creator.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has been borderline notable for quite some time, but unfortunately definitely put his head above the parapet just now. Agathoclea (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Current coverage is just a side of the current on-goings concerning wikipedia. If this person was truly notable, they would be covered for reasons besides what is noted in the article.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Self-referential at best. Not notable within the government system of the UK. Recent news coverage does not mean that he is suddenly notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - councillors are generally not notable. This one is no exception: he fails WP:BIO, lacking sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing significant has changed in that respect from the last AFD on May 23rd. The only in-depth coverage is from The Register; unless someone can demonstrate that more exists, this article should be deleted. Robofish (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how you can say "nothing has changed" with a straight face, but I'll help you out: three days after his article was deleted, the media took notice of his activities on Wikipedia. TAway (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said nothing significant has changed, and I don't think it has - there still aren't enough references to prove notability. I'm not aware that recent events have reached the media either, beyond The Register (and that reference isn't enough to build an article on). If you can show that they have, I'll happily change to Keep. Robofish (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have an interesting bar for what qualifies as "significant," then. To be clear, you do not deny the legitimacy or reliability of the source itself? TAway (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't - it seems reliable and more-or-less factually correct. But we need more than one source like that to write an article. If this was a new article, rather than a recreated one, and that was the only source, it would have to be deleted. Robofish (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The reasons for the Delete result of the last AFD were given as there is no indication that the article meets criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, WP:CSD#A7. It is a biography of a living person that entirely lacks references, and there is contentious material in the history of the article and the talk page. Also noted, the subject has asked more than once for this to be deleted. Under the combined weight of circumstances, deletion is clearly justifiable - and I don't see that anything has changed in the last five days. -- LondonStatto (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inaccurate; it does not entirely lack references, and the subject who requested deletion (immediately before the media picked up the story) is the subject of the current controversy. TAway (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• An article on The Register by a writer who is apparently obsessed with finding "Wikiscandal" does not count as substantial media attention demonstrating notability. Delete. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 07:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage from journalists we dislike or disapprove of "don't count"? Where is that written? TAway (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2009 (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.