Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Barwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per failure to meet WP:RS and WP:BIO. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gavin Barwell

Gavin Barwell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A Conservative party functionary. No independent sources cited, no credible or substantiated evidence of notability. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:BIO unless reliable sources can be provided for proof of notability. (aeropagitica) 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I would keep this. Google searches confirm he is a Croydon councillor. This link shows he was Operations Director of the Conservatives in 2004. This link includes a list of Special Advisers from 1997 in which he is included at the Department of the Environment. I think that, even if holding these posts individually would not make him notable, holding all of them at various times (and being on the 'A list') makes him worthy enough of inclusion. Sam Blacketer 23:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I have added sources from some leading national UK newspapers, and believe that there is just about enough to pass WP:BIO. Eludium-q36 20:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~
  • Keep New sources do seem to confirm notability. Has been written about independent third party reliable sources. Passes WP:BIO. --Charlene 08:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - the references make him enough notable. -- Cate | Talk 10:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No independent references (i.e. outside of party / house of commons) to assert notability. The other articles are not about him as subject; he is only mentioned in passing. Akihabara 11:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It appears that subsequent research has made the nomination for AfD obsolete. The sources demonstrate that he is noticed, or holds positions which are inherently noticed. The second paragraph of the notability criteria page specifies that being noticed is sufficient for meeting notability. The sources appear to be independent and credible. --Kevin Murray 15:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, sources have been added since first nomination ... guess it could pass as “beginner” article and WP:BIO is satisfied Alf photoman 17:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Xiner (talk, email) 19:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no independent sources. Those provided are not 3rd party or he is not the subject of the article. Nuttah68 15:30, 13 January 2007 (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.