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. The SPAs aside, the consensus for deletion is clear. Deor ( talk) 11:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Chris J. Perry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

appears non-notable. Google searches only turn up routine coverage, and a minor court case. The tone of the article also has issues. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 09:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - biography of a nonentity. . . Mean as custard ( talk) 11:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Note: Subject has added two sources which are not easily checked, a Social Work Today article and a Community Care article, both from 1981. Neither magazine appears to have online archives on their site going back nearly that far (unsurprisingly), so it's hard to quickly evaluate how much the articles were about the subject. Both are sources references in other articles here, Community Care on Social work, International Stuttering Awareness Day, John Barrowman, and Martin Narey, Social Work Today only on Web 2.0 (yeah, I didn't see that one coming either.) As such, these are not the most visible sources; they do seem likely to be reliable and not just local in scope. - Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete An nice resume to be sure, but certainly not what I would consider to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I can't find any secondary coverage of the subject that rises above routine. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 18:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete This person was a local government employee who made no lasting impact. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as not notable, per nominator. Sarah 10:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply

RETAIN. When this article appeared a little over a year ago, based upon a story in "There's more to LIFE",I was absolutely delighted. Prior to that any one searching Chris J Perry, former Director of Social Services, on Google pulled up information on the high profile court case based on the prosecution evidence at the end of which the Judge directed the Jury to bring in a verdict of "not guilty" there being "no case to answer". This entry put the record straight. Christopher James Perry ( talk) 10:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply

RETAIN It is hard to understand how this article went through all the hoops when it was submitted and had the tag removed and yet a year later the person about whom the article was written made two minor amendments by way of update and it is threatened with deletion. As for notoriety: i) There will be few people who were teenagers between 1956 and 1962 in Sheffield or South Yorkshire who would not have heard of C J Perry and Peter York and the Pontiacs; ii)There will be few people who worked in Social Services between 1960 and 2000 who would not be aware of Chris Perry; iii) there will be few people who worked at a senior level with older people between 1997 and 2012 who would not be aware of him; iv) there will be few people who were in South Wales between 1982 and 2000 who would not have heard of Chris Perry or in Hampshire from 1997 onward, and; v) Chris Perry still presents a weekly programme on Express FM from September to May each year. Christopher James Perry ( talk) 20:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply

None of those are reasons why you would qualify for a Wikipedia article that doesn't cite any substantive coverage in reliable sources. Most of them are completely unverifiable claims — since we don't have the capacity to directly poll all of those groups to find out whether they've heard of you or not, reliable source coverage is our only way of determining whether the claim is true or not. As well, WP:NMEDIA only grants a presumption of notability to nationally distributed radio personalities, and not to every single person who hosts a radio program on their local radio station. And you need to familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest policies as well — they don't mean that you're required to completely abstain from edits about yourself at all, but you do need to exercise a greater level of caution that you're not violating our content and inclusion rules to promote yourself. Bearcat ( talk) 17:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply

RETAIN Chris Perry: i) received an Individual Age Positive Award in 2004 in recognition of his campaigning against age discrimination in the work place, which was presented to him by The Rt Hon Malcolm Wicks MP and Lorraine Kelly; ii) had a successful petition on the Number 10 Website in 2010, and; iii) was elected an Honorary Member of the British Association of Social Workers in 2012 in recognition of a lifetimes contribution to social work. 79.79.100.218 ( talk) 20:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm happy for him. None of those, however, are reasons why somebody gets an encyclopedia article. Bearcat ( talk) 17:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep. Chris Perry was a tremendous influence on my life, made an outstanding and lasting contribution to social work and few would have bounced back from the court case as he did. Carol Y Gerrett ( talk) 07:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Chris Perry deserves the recognition for the work he did and the impact he had on so many peoples' lives over a fifty year period and the lassting influence he had on social policy. Carol Y Gerrett ( talk) 07:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia does not exist to confer "recognition" on people who were tremendous influences on your life (and while I'm happy that your husband/partner is important to you — oh, the things one learns from the edit history, User:Carol gerrett-perry — it also means that you have a conflict of interest.) We exist to collate verifiable information about people who have already passed a notability guideline by virtue of having garnered substantive coverage in reliable sources, not to let everybody on earth have a Google presence just because they exist. Bearcat ( talk) 17:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• keep Notoriety: i) There will be few people who were teenagers in Sheffield or South Yorkshire during the late fifties and early sixties who would not have heard of C J Perry and Peter York and the Pontiacs. ii) There will be few people who were social workers in England and Wales between 1960 and 2000 who will not be aware of Chris Perry. iii) There will be few people who lived in South Wales between 1982 and 2000 who will not have heard of Chris Perry; iv) there will be few people who have lived in Hampshire since 1997 who have not heard of Chris Perry; v) most people working with older people in senior positions will be aware of Chris Perry; vi) the Court Case made National Headlines and was unique - no other Director of Social Services ever having been similarly charged - Judge Directed Jury to bring in a verdict of "not guilty" there being no "case to answer"; vii) Chris Perry was subsequently presented with an individual Age Positive Award in 2004 by The Rt Hon Malcolm Wicks MP, Minister for Work and Pensions and Lorraine Kelly in recognition of his campaigning against "age discrimination in the workplace", and; viii) in 2012 Chris Perry was elected an Honorary Member of the British Association of Social Workers in recognition of a lifetimes contribution to social work Christopher James Perry ( talk) 08:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• keep When this article was first submitted a year ago it went through all the hoops and had the tags removed. What has changed? Christopher James Perry ( talk) 08:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• keep It is not easy for people who are aware of the discussion to find the entry in order to participate Christopher James Perry ( talk) 08:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply

To the recent posters:

• If you posted more than one "keep" or "retain", I have struck through all but one. This is standard Wikipedia practice; in assessing what the overall tone of response is, we don't want the illusion of additional weight given to editors who state their preference (what we call "!votes") repeatedly.
• I certainly understand that it may be a convenience to the subject to have this rather than other items show up on a Google search. However, Wikipedia does not exist for the convenience of its subjects, nor to control what Google puts out.
• Statements that there are few people of a give group who are not aware of someone are problematic to evaluate, unless there is some existing polling to show it. (And it would not be appropriate for Wikipedians to do such polling, under our guideline against original research.)
• It has not been through "all the hoops". Previously cleared have been concerns that the piece was a copyright violation and that it had no references. It had not been tested for notability, which is what this process is. And Wikipedia articles can be checked at any time.
• I'm not certain what is meant by the statement that this page is not easy to find for people who are aware of the discussion. It is linked to on the article page itself, so that people who are interested in the article can find it. It is listed on our list of articles currently in the Articles For Deletion process, so that Wikipedians interested in articles under deletion can find it. It has a unique URL, so that if one wishes to direct those not already on Wikipedia to the discussion, one can do so... although I will note that bringing in a lot of people without Wikipedia experience to sway the discussion tends to be ineffective, as they commonly due not address the actual Wikipedia guideline issues at hand, and can often be seen as a form of what we call " meatpuppetry". If there is some other way that this discussion can be made accessible, please recommend it. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• This, as written, is an almost entirely unsourced article about a person who does not pass any of our actual inclusion rules. The only footnoted reference is a blurb which does not constitute substantial enough coverage to get him past WP:GNG, let alone WP:NPOL — and the majority of the other listed but unfootnoted sources are the minutes of council meetings (a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE that can never confer notability.) Further, Wikipedia does not exist as a public relations database on which anybody is entitled to post an article to control the narrative of what turns up about them in a Google search; it's an encyclopedia, for which our article topics need to properly demonstrate, via the use of reliable sources, that they pass our notability standards. A person whose primary claim of notability was as an unelected bureaucrat at the county level of government does not meet our test for WP:NPOL — even elected councillors at that level of government don't necessarily pass NPOL just because they exist, let alone the council's employees. So I'm sorry, but this is a clear delete. Bearcat ( talk) 17:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• keep Chris Perry had a huge influence on my life as he did many others and also influenced social policy throughout his career. Few would have bounced back from the court case to re-establish a National Profile as he did and he still attracts 30,000 listeners to his weekly radio programme from Sept to May each year. This entry was accepted when first submitted a year ago. Carol Y Gerrett ( talk) 13:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• keep Chris Perry's involvement with the voluntary sector, campaigning and media work were all outside the call of duty. He had a successful petition on the number 10 website and continues to campaign rigorously. Clearly worthy of continued inclusion on Wikipedia having been on for a year Carol Y Gerrett ( talk) 14:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: I have copied the following post over from the article's talk page, as it seems intended to address the deletion question. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• I have know Chris Perry in a professional context since 2008. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of his Wiki entry, but if he has been cited in a wikipedia article which casts him in a bad light it is appropriate that he is given a chance to present himself in a good light. Simon Whipple, Solicitor, Bransgore, Hampshire Simonwhipple ( talk) 10:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I know of no Wikipedia article that has cast him in a bad light; the subject was complaining about Google results pointing to articles on other websites that he felt cast him in an inappropriate light. It is not Wikipedia's job to correct Google nor to ensure that people's public image aligns with their self-image. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Directors of Social Services would only have a chance of being inherently notable if they worked for a very significant jurisdiction. South Glamorgan just doesn't cut it. Nothing else makes him notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• keep It is readily apparent from the above comments that many of those making them have not read the entry in its entirety or, if they have, have not understood the significance of what they have read. I agree entirely that someone is not appropriate for Wikipedia simply by virtue of having been a Director of Social Services. But that is not what this entry is meant to imply. Could I suggest that before reaching a decision the person responsible does read it all the way through for one last time, please? It met all the criteria a year ago when the tags were removed. Wish I had left alone and not made the two minor changes in pursuit of accuracy Christopher James Perry ( talk) 17:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • So, which elements of his life and career do you think make him notable? Because nothing you've enumerated above seems to me to be sufficient. Comments that boil down to "everyone in this area has heard of him" aren't really relevant. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment You may think his career is boring as a rock. But it is as much a part of the political and social landscape of his area as a rock is the physical landscape, too. Bolts of lightning come and go unnoticed in the physical landscape; only in politics do we consider them more important. Perhaps it might be better to recognize those that make the lasting and beneficial contributions to society. Anarchangel ( talk) 00:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ Anarchangel: What does that mean? Do you have an opinion as to whether or not this article should be deleted? § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 05:13, 30 July 2014 (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.