Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Parker-Perry

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 - fails notability guidelines. Thanks/wangi 08:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Parker-Perry

Sean Parker-Perry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a simple case of Wikipedia trying to list every elected official in the world. UK election turn outs are very low and to list every councillor is flawed. A google search would yield far better results than a page on wikipedia Mike33 11:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete On the google test of notability he stars 0 with 95 hits [Google search] and on google news archive hits 8 hits [Google News Archive]. Wikipedia is not here to list every elected official. Elected officials serve their terms and go. A councillor who ended up before a judge maybe notorious but not notable. Mike33 11:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete this article has caused nothing but grief. There's appatently some kind of local political tiff involving this chap Roy Oldham and the Longdendale Bypass. I've no idea what its about - but we've had various OTRS correspondence, I've had people claiming to be the principals all over my userpage for months - we've had POV pushing and vandalism on the articles, and abusive images uploaded from various socknests. I've no idea what it is about, and I don't care. Wikipedia is not a battle ground and this low-notability article isn't worth the fuss. Anyone voting keep should please agree to watchlist the article - referee the dispute - and put up with the hassle of maintaining it. If anyone is willing to do that, and do it properly, I'll withdraw my delete vote. Please don't vote "keep, this can be maintained - someone else could in theory do it. Either let us kill it, or maintain it yourself, and good luck.--Docg 12:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Undecided Though ideally the difficult of being maintained is not a consideration, I can see the utility of handling the most stubbon conflicts this way. Doc agrees that its at least minimally notable. On one hand, the visible problems lately have merely been attempted additions of links to wanker, and to facebook. However, we currently do not have articles on most municipal officials at this level in the UK or the US, and I can see our making a decision to not include them unless there was something special & this might not be special enough unless it escalates. DGG 18:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, I see nothing here indicating notability. I assume his article being here has somthing to do with the 2005 theft charge, but that was dismissed. It's well-referenced, but fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 18:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No This article is being investigated by the standards board for local councilors over Sean Parker Perry's edits. It is supposedly being investigated by the police according to SPP himself in a recent article in the Tameside Reporter. --Gayboy-DS
  • Delete per general notability issues, and agree with User:Doc glasgow's concerns and comment. MastCell Talk 22:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Important I raised the Afd initially. I received an email this evening pointing me to a local newspaper page [CYBERSPACE OF WORDS] where mr Parker-Perry mentions taking the matter to the police. I therefore renounce my delete and would opt for a two week protection on the page. I have also raised this in [AN/I]. I will contact mr Parker-perry and see if the police are involved. Mike33 22:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
After some thought, the article if it reaches consensus can be viewed in some form by the police at any time waybackmachine etc. Mike33 22:36, 14 June 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.