Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Roberts (politician)

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 notability not established. I note that the BBC had a nice site for vote2001, including video and audio, so the net was not that bacwards back then. There is no mention of Mike Roberts as a key person of the Conservatives, and Mike Roberts profile shows exactly nothing in the "Political career" section. If User:JamesBondMI6 wishes to have it userfied just drop me a line at my talk page, please. - Nabla (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Roberts (politician)

Mike Roberts (politician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable politician. Article has been tagged with "Notability" several times, by different editors, and the tag removed by original author of article, with no notability added and some offensive edit summaries. There has been fruitless discussion on talk page. PamD (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Week Keep Kind of a useful stub Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as just about notable, but de-hagiography. (That word rhymes with why, not tea.) Stifle (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Unfortunately, the nature of Wiki is such that whilst trivial web references are given huge importance, hours of TV and Radio time, and pages and pages of newpaper articles and journal references are given little or no importance at all. Which is somewhat topsy turvy. If I could supply 20 weblinks, no-one would argue, but 2001 was a long time ago in web terms and most of the references are in libraries or video tape somewhere.

As to notability, there are multiple definitions of notability in Wiki. Getting the UK centre right to buy into the concept of gay marriage was a notable achievment in itself.

There is a significant amount of material referring to this individual, it's just going to take time to get hold of it, get permission to publish it, and post it up here - which won't happen if this is deleted. I've worked for a number of politicians in my time and have an excellent insight into the behind the scenes machinations. It would be good to make it available. (JamesBondMI6 (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

  • Delete after a possible save in an archive on main author's talk page. At the moment, the entry seems to be premature. Given that quite a few previous notability notices have been added, and then removed without substantial additions to the article, and given that the main author says he thinks there are some, but he needs time to access them (they must be extremely obscure or else he must be extremely busy to take so much time), then the creation of the article seems definitely premature. When it comes down to it, Wikipedia must work with actual facts, not promised facts, and so I suggest that the article is placed in an archive page on the main author's talk page (User talk:JamesBondMI6) where it can be worked on when the promised sources are actually found and used. It might be helpful for WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CITE to be reviewed and used to inform this writing at the same time. Once it is expanded with notability established and verified by using appropriate references (this condition is required), it can be brought back into article space by recreating the article very simply. Of course, other appropriate references that would verify other claims in the article would be ideally added at the same time. I agree that as conservative politician who supports the idea of gay marriage is almost sufficient to render the person notable, but it counts for nothing unless it can be appropriately verified and referenced now, rather than some promise about it being able to be done at some future time. All the more when many previous notability tags have been added and simply removed with nothing substantial having been added to the article. I hope that solution would be an acceptable compromise to all.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately Delete - had he actually won the election and became an MP then it would be an obvious keep, but as he lost it does not meet the notability standards IMHO. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As stated elsewhere, there are a number of definitions of notability in Wiki, the one being quoted by the "antis" is extremely narrow and seems to focus exclusively on electoral success and complaints that all references only being in print, or TV, or Radio - rather then the web, which was a very different place in 1999-2002. Frankly, I would consider someone who had generated newsprint and TV time to be more significant than someone with a few easily linkable blog entries. Elsewhere in Wiki, it is stated that notability of a politician is considered from an individual's contribution to forming policy and actually effecting change. For American politicians, winning a primary is considered a qualification of notability. The UK equivalent would be open selection by one of the two main UK parties. As has been mentioned by others, being at the vanguard of gay rights in right-wing politics is notable in itself... (JamesBondMI6 (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC))
Note that this editor User:JamesBondMI6 has already voted "Keep" above.PamD (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
As a further comment, although it is repeated that there are sources that establish notability (even on the definition that JameBondMI6 would want to use), I note that none have been added to the article in an attempt to verify the notability by means of suitable reliable sources, and ample time has been given to do this. Instead, it seems that the most effort done by editors who want this article to be retained consists in either removing the appropriately added notices that ask for notability to be established, or arguing about sources we have yet to see in the article. Wikipedia acts on established facts, rather than promises of facts, etc, and so I see no reason why the article should be retained at the moment. I think that if this seems too harsh to those who wish the article to be retained, the concession of saving it to the main editor's talk space, allowing time for the article to be brought up to minimal standards if it can be, would be a sensible step, though it is not required at all: the better course of action would be for those who want to keep the article to start adding, without delay, reliable sources that verify and establish the notability of the subject, rather than arguing on the basis of promises here.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:10, 18 May 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.