Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Uppal

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. Veinor (talk to me) 18:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Uppal

Paul Uppal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I nominated this page with a delete template because it is obviously a violation of WP:BIO and WP:NOT, however the creator of the page chose to remove it and so I have been forced to apply an AFD, this page does not comply with several Wikipedia guidelines and is nothing more than a promotional page for a candidate in an election which does not even have a date, and the person is not notable other than for this reason, I feel that this page does not serve any encyclopedic purpose and the creator of the page is not fully aware of Wikipedia policy. Politicalwatchmen 16:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete this article cites no sources, and is just a promotional page, as stated above. Darrenhusted 18:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete He is not an elected representative, hence using this as a political tool. 195.194.178.157 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is not particularly informative, and does not even relate in my considered opinion to any legitimate candidacy for an election, as the said election has not to date been called, this therefore is a presumption of candidacy, rather than a confirmation. Wikipedia cannot predict the future, and as each election is very self-contained, there is very little guarantee that this page will still be relevant come the time for a UK general election, as the party concerned is perfectly entitled not to go ahead with this prospective candidate's formal nomination. The political party is not the issue here, but I am arguing from the point of view of the relevance of this page. Political Avenger 18:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • weak keep Using common sense, the election is coming, and he will very likely be the candidate for one of the major parties.
BUT there absolutely must be some third party sources; Certainly they ought to be there by now. It's up to the people who have been ed. the article to produce them. Otherwise certainly delete.DGG 01:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A google search for "Paul Uppal" only brings up his own page, a few references to the nomination on Conservative sites (most of which just list the nomination), and the wikipedia article itself. If there are third party refernces then they aren't apparent through google. Even the Guardian page which comes up first just lists his position in the 2005 election and nothing else. Politicalwatchmen 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete By all means keep this page IF he gets elected but you cannot in the current situation, i think the above people have the argued the case well enough Nrana 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I live in Uppal's constituency and I want an opportunity to find out about people who are standing for election in my area. I want to be able to check more sources than just the candidate's own website. Allowing candidates to have entries in Wikipedia is important for democracy, I believe. MattRevell 12:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment MattRevell, if you live in the constituency that Uppal is running in then no doubt you will be able to talk to him directly, the nomination for this page's deletion is all about Wikipedia policy, and gaining a nomination for an election which has no date and a page which contains no sources seems to me to be an obvious violation of Wikipedia policy. Paul Uppal is not notable, and this page is nothing more than vanity. Politicalwatchmen 12:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Quote "Candidates for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability." from WP:BIO, I trust this clears the matter up for you MattRevell. Politicalwatchmen 14:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That quote is not in WP:BIO. It may once have been, or you may think it ought to be. The question, however, is under discussion on its talk page, so we can discuss it there. DGG 01:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The quote was in WP:BIO, when I quoted it, but has now been removed. Such is the nature of Wikipedia, however the point still stands, an google search only bring up sites run by the candidate and his party or the wikipedia entry, he is not notable at this moment, so should not have a page. And a question of WP:COI arises when you read his homepage and find that the page was created by his friend. Politicalwatchmen 14:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Politicalwatchmen - I could go and find information about all sorts of things by talking directly to the people involved. However, I don't always want to trust only their version of the story and it seems a rather inefficient way of doing things. In this case, I think the Wikipedia policy is wrong and that this is an excellent example of one of the flaws of Wikipedia: i.e. that there are people using Wikipedia who spend their time deleting content, and stifling expression, in a thoroughly jobsworth manner. As an aside, how do you respond to the allegation that Political Avenger is just another name for you? MattRevell 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have already addressed that matter on the relevant page. As for "stifling expression", I'm not sure where you get that from. Wikipedia's policies are agree upon by the whole community, and reached through consensus. The Wikipedia servers are not infinite, and this page (and other) do nothing encyclopedic, they are just there for vanity. Paul Uppal came third in the 2005 general election, does that make him notable. There is nothing on his page other than personal information, and that information is better suited to a blog or homepage, not an entry in an encyclopedia. The fact that candidates are not viewed as having inherent notability is not just my own personal view but rather the view, reached by consensus, of the whole wikipedia community. There are many policies with which I disagree, but while they are policy I will follow them rather than ignore them. Politicalwatchmen 18:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would say that consensus has been reached, and the article has not been improved or changed since the 27th February, and no additonal sources have been cited. The creator of the article is a friend of Paul Uppal and so in addition to the various WP:N issues ther is also an issue of WP:COI. I don't think it is neccessary to salt the earth, but any recreation should be subject to speedy delete, at least until the election is called. Politicalwatchmen 11:35, 27 March 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.