- 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. j⚛e decker talk 03:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- André Walker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While the last debate reached no consensus that was because there was confusion over Walker. This article was pointed out to me in another AfD dicussion over a different page, and I realised this was also a prime target for discussion. Walker was notable from one event when he made a gaffe as a mere administrative staff member for a local council, a assembly which is the most junior kind of political body in the UK. It was also pointed out in the last AfD discussion that many of the edits were made to this page and his brother's page, which could indicate non-notability and peacocking. I do not think there is enough notability for a page Westminsterstudent ( talk) 04:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 28. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 05:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 13:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 16:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Since being a local borough councillor is not an office that satisfies WP:NPOL, a controversy involving him just makes him a WP:BLP1E rather than somebody who should have an encyclopedia article. In addition, most of the sourcing here is to primary sources, with not enough reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of failing NPOL. So it's a delete, I'm sorry to say. Bearcat ( talk) 21:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 02:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. He is non notable, I went though his refs and from doing that it becomes apparent who he is - a very ordinary person and not a media personality as this article claims.
Szzuk (
talk)
08:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Add. All of the keep votes from the first afd were from a sock. Should have gone last time. Szzuk ( talk) 08:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - The subject fails to meet general notablity guidelines and the article looks very much like a promotional piece, especially given the sockpuppetry situation regarding the article's creator and previous defenders. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 09:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - although there are a lot of links given, most are either not reliable secondary sources or are not primarily about this individual; the main exception being the single event about his you tube indiscretion. As such, it doesn't meet the notability criteria. AndrewRT( Talk) 22:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- 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.