Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damian McBride

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 as there is not a WP:SNOWballs chance in WP:HELL this will be deleted, this time. JBsupreme (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damian McBride

This person appears to be only "notable" for one particular (albeit very amusing) scandal; they appear to have done little interesting otherwise... anyway, the only source material is news coverage of this one event. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 07:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom does not satisfy any kind of notability standard not even the event. JBsupreme (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. That scandal should have a wiki page. 81.100.45.145 (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; clearly not notable. Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. The guy was Head of Strategy for the Prime Minister and already notorious before this incident.--ascorbic (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps provide some reliable, third-party sources unconnected with the scandal to support that claim? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 09:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. I'll add a couple of these to the article, where relevant. --ascorbic (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers 1, 7 and 8 (from the Prime Minister's Office and the Treasury) are not third party sources and thus can't be used to establish notability. I'll reserve judgement of the others until I peep at how they've been incorporated into the article. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 10:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're reliable for the purposes of identifying him as a senior government official though. I'll incorporate other sources once I've added more information about his role as spin doctor. I'll do that later though, as I have to head out shortly. --ascorbic (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per results of Ascorbic's research. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per results of Ascorbic's research.93.96.148.42 (talk) 10:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per results of Ascorbic's results, otherwise redirect to Premiership of Gordon Brown. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Even if this guy is notable for only one event, that event could have significant and lasting implications for the present government. I feel at the very least it should be a redirect because of his (McBride's) key position, the fact that this will lead to some serious questions about the conduct of those working behind the scenes in Downing Street and therefore people are going to search for his name. If his actions were to result in something such as Gordon Brown's resignation and/or the downfall of the government then there would be no question about his notability. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now This guy is literally all over the news (it's on the front page of today's Mail on Sunday), and though I'm wary of 'one event', this piece on The Times' site suggests that there may well be more related to Ruth Kelly, which is a separate incident. No prejudice against merging or whatever at a later date if nothing becomes of it, but I think there's more to this guy. Someone another 14:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was a bit surprised yesterday to discover that he didn't have a page then. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty enough evidence of notability for me. DWaterson (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that this is an important article. Damian McBride does have more to him than just this scandal, but as a senior Downing Street advisor I think he is definitely worth including in wikipedia. Other Downing Street advisors have pages such as Greg Beales. It does need expanding beyond the scandal however. Xtrememachineuk (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This story is likely to run on and on. Philip Cross (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable aside from the current scandal. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has been the subject of a vast amount of press attention in the past few days, and a little before then. As one of Gordon Brown's top 'spin doctors', he was arguably notable even before the current scandal broke; now, he definitely is. Robofish (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.