Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clive Watkinson

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 Notability not established in independent, reliable sources. All sources, as pointed out below, are either COI or otherwise related to subject. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clive Watkinson

Clive Watkinson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable failed parliamentary candidate, nothing to distinguish him from hundreds of other local politicians who fought an unsuccessful campaign in a general election, per WP:BIO#Politicians. I PRODded this article on 28 March, and it was deleted but then restored today at DRV.

Apart from his own website and other websites of his party, the only remotely substantial coverage of him include appears to be a mention in a BBC news report of the 2005 Conservative Party leadership election. I don't think that's anywhere near enough to meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", because the BBC report isn't really about Watkinson, it's about the party leaders. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that the article was originally created by Clivewat (talk · contribs), so there may be a COI issue here. The article has been expanded a little bit since Clivewat's last edit to it, in December 2006. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked for this article to be undeleted this afternoon as the Gentleman in question is a senior businessman in Barnsley who is a Director of the Barnsley & Rotherham Chamber Of Commerce, and a director of the Barnsley Development agency - an extremly powerful body.

Although I do not wish to go into the "politics" of this - it seems that he is quite a senior member of the Conservative party (even though this might not be in a public elected position).

I agree that is seems that there is a possible COI, however even if he did write an article about himself it seems to be factual and balanced and has been upgraded by other users over a period of a couple of years - I fail to see why this has suddenly become an issue now.

BRChamber (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just a quick guess, but is the new user BRChamber (talk · contribs) perhaps in some way connected to the Barnsley & Rotherham Chamber Of Commerce? If my guess is wrong, then sorry for the mistake, but if right then I'm sure that BRChamber will be able to help establish the notability of Clive Watkinson by pointing us to all the substantial coverage which Watkinson has received in reliable sources independent of the subject. We need the help, my Google search for this extremely powerful body only returns only7 hits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted! Barnsley and Rotherham Chamber of commerce was created last year as a result of the merger of Barnsley Chamber of Commerce and Rotherham Chamber of Commerce - that's why you are not finding anything in your search. - Try Google search for Barnsley Chamber Of Commerceand you will get 904 returns - you might also find more information under BCCI (Barnsley Chamber Of Commerce & Industry)

I will try and update this article with some sources tomorrow for you.

BRChamber (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

BRChamber, please also take some time to read WP:COI. Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now read the COI and don't feel as if there is any - especially as the COI refered to a biased article, which I don't believe that this is. However, in order to maintain neutrality, I have simply added references to the article and removed a broken external link, so that I cannot be accused of bias.

It is clear that you are hell bent on deleting this article, so I don't intend to add any more as I am just a lowly new user whilst you are an administrator - so it's likely to get deleted anyway.

BRChamber (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Making you aware of the COI guideline is necessary not only for cooperation here, but also in your own interest. Many people are simply not aware hat they get into when editing on subject they're affiliated with. The mentioned guideline also has a section on deletion that illustrates actually well what is happening here. One of the many politician articles here has been proposed for deletion, being tagged for five days, not least to establish whether anybody but the creators thinks it should be here. If that is the case (as here) the deletion can swiftly be undone, but it is everybody's right to ask for a deeper evaluation. So there is no reason to assume that the nominator is 'hell bent', but merely that according to her understanding of our policies and guidelines and the current information, we shouldn't have an article on this politician. An the outcome of this discussion, that is now in need of further opinions, will depend more on the quality of sources about him than of anything else.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok - Point taken. Thanks for that Tikiwont. Perhaps I over reacted due to the tone of the previous commenter.

I still feel that the article is well balanced, factual and not making any exagerated claims about Mr Watkinson, and I still don't see why it's suddenly become an issue after being up for almost 2 years.

I also, from my point of view feel that it's useful to highlight senior members of the business community - I constantly refer to Wikipedia when I want some information on people that I'm meeting and find it a useful tool.

Perhaps the aricle should be moved to a different section rather than political since the majority of the article refers to Mr Watkinson's business and community commitments rather that his politcal bent (which I don't want to comment on anyway).

BRChamber (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason that the article became an issue is that it was spotted by someone who chose to do something about the subject's lack of notability. Sometimes such articles are spotted very quickly, but in other cases (such as this) it takes longer.

As to why it faces deletion, please do read WP:N, WP:NOT and WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read the articles you suggested, and still disagree with you for the reasons that I've already stated.

But, hey - If it makes you feel good to go around deleting articles are are doing no harm to anyone then I suppose we've both had our say and I'll leave it up to another administrator to decide whether Mr W is notable enough.

BRChamber (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:AGF, please. If you can provide references in reliable sources to demonstrate that Watkinson meets the notability criteria, then I will support keeping the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 11 April 2008 (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.