Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Pugh (Conservative politician)

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. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Pugh (Conservative politician)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:POLITICIAN. On the subject of his "bust-up", while this does provide coverage, it is carefully excised through WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you sure about WP:NOT#NEWS? It's turned into quite an incident on the Isle of Wight. The article is good too, and well referenced. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think that the recent event adds much to notability, but the subject does pass WP:POLITICIAN criterion 2 as a county council leader (or, to be pedantic, leader of a unitary authority which is co-terminous with a former county) who has received significant press coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having thought more about this, I have decided to vote keep. As Phil says, he has received significant press coverage, as seen in the references of the article. I do think that the bust up increases notability. Not many politicians are seen to say that sort of thing in public. As I says, it's a big topic on the IOW at the moment. Just look at these Ventnor Blog entries. I know not particularly reliable, but [1] 153 comments, [2] 255 comments, [3] 147 comments. These are all unprecedented amounts of comments for the blog to receive. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to both WP:BLP1E, anyone? much of said news coverage is about this incident involving the "bust-up", and all of it comes from the same, local source; precisely the type of paper to cover the council leader. If local news = passing WP:POLITICIAN, every councillor in Britain could have an article. I was also unaware that WP:POLITICIAN was intended to overrule our BLP policies. Ironholds (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks like the event at Cowes Yacht Haven isn't over yet. A number of councillors are now demanding a probe into the event by an independent body. (see [4]). Although it happened on the 18th February it still remains a very much discussed event. Editor5807^speak 13:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I struggle to see how this can be described as a BLP1E, the article does not give undue weight to any incident and the article gives a reasonable coverage of the individual as a biography rather than centred on any one incident. I also agree with Phil Bridger that the article does pass WP:POLITICIAN and would happy that any such politician, who has enough coverage for us write this good an article, should be kept. Davewild (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2010 (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.