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 --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ireland[edit]

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

This person is not notable, nor have they achieved anything especially important or worthy of note. The article is little more than a glorified online CV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chithecynic (talk • contribs) 17 December 2009

Speedy keep, ~~probable sockpuppet nominator~~, clearly inaccurate rationale. Follows a string of bad faith multiple PRODs and speedies from SPAs. Not a great article by any measure, but cites enough press coverage to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Checkuser did not associate this account with the identified sockpuppeteer, so I'll pull that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet nominator? Do you mind! I have contributed a number of articles to Wikipedia in the past, as well as improved the degree of accuracy in others. I came across this article on Tim Ireland for the first time today as a result of something I read on a blog that mentioned him. My nomination for the page's deletion was performed once (before I had logged in) and again (after logging in, because it was immediately reverted by an anonymous IP).

There is no "bad faith" in my actions and, frankly, I'm disappointed by the attitude of certain moderators here on Wikipedia in keeping articles which are little short of dross. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chithecynic (talk • contribs) 16:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a whopping 47 edits over nearly four years, which hardly makes you a "semi-regular contributor," as you described yourself on my talk page. You placed two invalid prods on the page today, replicating the recent actions of various IP/socks/SPAs. Your nomination rationale is transparently inaccurate. Whatever the merits of the article, it's clearly not a "glorified online CV," especially given that it repeatedly cites national press coverage of/interviews with its subject. You'd made only six edits in the last year, then dropped into a running dispute and behaved quite like an already involved sock/vandal, right down to placing invalid prods on an article already deprodded multiple times by multiple editors, then demanding an explanation. If you edit inappropriately, repeating the actions of IP vandals and SPAs, you shouldn't complain about being identified with them. Adding back PRODs that have been removed is a clear violation of policy, and virtually a signature of a class of would-be vandals. Perhaps you might bother to explain why you edited so inappropriately, and why you elected to disregard the clear, valid point I made about your adding an "invalid repeat prod." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He seems to be notable, based on the content of the article and its references. – Eastmain (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I have never put up an article for deletion before, because I hadn't come across one that I didn't think deserved to exist on Wikipedia. This was the first time. As you have pointed out, I don't edit things that often, so I'm not accustomed to every single rule and regulation. I noticed that somebody had put the article up for deletion before, so I simply copied what they did. I then made a comment in the "talk" page for the article to say I had referred the article for deletion. You reverted it; I then realised I hadn't logged in, and assumed this was why it had been reverted. Having logged in, I referred it for deletion again. This time, a far friendlier editor sent me a message explaining what I needed to do to have the article deleted, and thus I followed their advice - hence this entry on the deletion log. I don't have any problem with your suspicions, but I do have an issue with your manner. You would do well to improve your online etiquette, something I note from your talk page you have been challenged on before. Don't jump to hasty conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chithecynic (talk • contribs) 17:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notwithstanding the nominator's motivations, I do believe there is some merit to the AfD, but personally I am undecided. I recommend further discussion of notability under WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Of the surprisingly few hits I found for the subject, coverage was slightly more than incidental - NYTimes [1], Newstatesman [2], The Gaurdian [3] all mention the subject, but not as the primary focus. Vulture19 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not particularly notable and this could never be described as a good entry. Magpie1892 19:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vulture19 - a number of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete non-notable individual. Involved in extremely minor political activism. References do discuss the article subject, but the focus of the references is not Tim Ireland, instead it is the political climate of Britain of which his activism is being reported as an example rather than because any individual action of his is inherently notable. None of the actions listed in the article could be considered to even vaguely fulfil WP:ANYBIO, namely that, "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". For example, the protest in Parliament Square resulted in no arrests, nor any change in law, nor do any of the references indicate that it even prompted any significant discussion regarding people's right to demonstrate outside parliament. It seems to be the very definition of a non-event. Some of the information (what little is actually cited) could have a place in the article on the relevant UK election or a specific politician, but does not require an individual article. Fenix down (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete Not sockpuppet nomiator, not 'inaccurate rationale'. Self-penned article of subject without any notability. Not imformative, not relevant. Agree with above sentiments. Seven -nil (talk) 12.47, 18 December 2009 (UTC) — Seven-nil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete The references cited don't appear to have anything directly to do with Mr Ireland. He has his own website if he wishes to blow his own trumpet but Wikipedia is not the place for such tosh, especially as it is such a low-grade article. This standard of entry should last about five minutes before being removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.28.34.132 (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Fenix down —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.217.22 (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC) — 92.41.217.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note to closing admin: please see Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#A veritable sock drawer at Articles for deletion/Tim Ireland, which confirms some socking here. At least one of the !voting IPs is also a public hotspot, for however much that should be taken into account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE) Struck Seven-nil's vote as a votestack. No comment on the merits of the AfD or the IP addresses. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 21:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls well short of the GNG, this BLP article is just a mess. RMHED (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Crummy article, but in my view the sources in the article combined with those found by Vulture19 suffice to demonstrate notability—barely. Favonian (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Several editors have stated that the references indicate notability. Clearly they indicate that the article subject has attracted attention, however no one who has made such statements has made any attempt to link them to WP:ANYBIO. Disregarding the obvious socks / trolls here, the article appears to be leaning towards keep, no one has made any attempt to assert notability other than the arguement that a press article = notability. Aside from the other issues with this discussion is becoming very confusing. I am happy for the article to stay if notability is established, but no source quoted in the article asserts notability of the individual, they all focus on events he has organised, events that themselves do not appear notable temselves, making it hard to justify te article subject's notability. Fenix down (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial sources about the person, rather than namechecks in discussion of his work. As a Brit, I have never heard of him. Having read the article... I still haven't. We know he claims to have done a few things "first" (for whatever value of first might count in politics, where people routinely redefine the question to suit their claim) but there is no real biographical coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Thirs party coverage does not seem significant.--Pink Bull 04:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources provided by Vulture19 (talk · contribs) are passing mentions that are not specifically about the subject. The depth is not enough to establish notability. My own searches for sources have returned no results. This article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Notability (biographies). Cunard (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I really don't see the notability. A couple of mentions in the media about some relatively unimportant stuff. Seems more like stuff they put in to fill time/space than actual news. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:47, 31 December 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.