Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Beackon

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 Keep. BLACKKITE 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Beackon

Derek Beackon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Ignoring that the article is clearly POV and needs a major re-write the simple fact is that served a short while as a local councillor and would fail to be notable according to the WP:BIO guidelines. You could argue that notability is derived from the fact that he was, controversially, a British National Party councillor, but this is only one episode and doesn't confer notability as per WP:BIO1E BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Derek Beackon would not be included had he not been the first extreme rightist to be elected to a public post in Britain for very many years. The campaign ending in his removal also upset the political balance in Tower Hamlets. Since then the BNP have made gains in other areas becoming an increasing political force. In saying that you believe this to be POV (which I do not think it is)you appear to say that this is not a ground for deletion ("ignoring"). Beackon is notable because he was the first, although subsequent BNP councillors may be of little interest individually. Whether or not the BNP may be described as fascist is a continuing controversy. However Derek Beackon was formerly a member of an openly Nazi organisation - The British Movement, which would have entailed his swearing an oath to Adolf Hitler. Streona (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

POV The article is clearly POV. It starts off with a phrase like "unemployed nazi bus driver" and has phrases like "Beackon was not the most capable or articulate choice available", mentions his "lack of capability" and calls him "an otherwise unprepossessing individual". None of these are verified and clearly written from an anti-Beackon stance. While you and I might share that stance, it is not for Wikipedia to take that view.

Notability I'm aware that Beackon was the first BNP councillor. However my view (and hence the proposal for deletion) is that one incident does not endow notability. The article itself mentions that he has faded into obscurity. I think the episode rightly belongs in the British National Party article, and when you strip out the unreferenced and POV statments in this article it is all, pretty much, already there. Of course, the reason I've nominated for deletion is to see if there is an consensus on that view. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This person is unfortunately notable, as shown by this press coverage. Any POV issues can be taken care of by editing rather than deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly notable per Phil Bridger. AFD is not for clean-up or even for merging. Discussion can continue on the talk page. --JayHenry (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Being the first BNP councillor would seem to make him notable, and he has received press coverage from reliable sources; but it's also clear that he's done nothing significant since, and I doubt this biography can be expanded any further. I wonder if it might be better to merge this into another page, but it shouldn't be deleted outright. Terraxos (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep He is clearly notable as he is well covered in both media and academic works. Furthermore if a motion to keep is agreed I will guarantee here and now that I will undertake to overhaul this article and make sure it is properly referenced. Keresaspa (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment OK, as promised I have expanded the article with references and will continue to do so as and when I have time. I have also added in some stuff on his post-election career and attempted to weed out some of the POV stuff. I feel the article is now a reasonable keep. Keresaspa (talk) 15:46, 15 January 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.