Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Hilton
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. Shimeru (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Hilton[edit]
- Alex Hilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable as per WP:BIO.Internet blogger with a couple of minor TV appearances providing news commentary and a small run in with an MP. Wintonian (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and replace with the notable boxer at this location (Alex Hilton (boxer)) 65.94.253.16 (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blogging just isn't enough. 3rd party sourcing isn't substantial enough to justify an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Disambiguation page He fails WP:POLITICIAN and news coverage is too trivial to pass WP:BIO. The disambiguation page should include a list of his failed candidacy attempts with links to the appropriate UK Parliamentary constituencies, as well as a link to the boxer. RayTalk 22:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if you do that, he becomes a non-article, so the boxer should be primary. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete present article. Clearly NN as a politician. By all means move the boxer inot the space vacated. We will not need a dab page, since there will be no other article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold until May 7th. He is a candidate in the UK General Election 2010, for Chelsea and Fulham (UK Parliament constituency). Although it is not likely he will be elected, there is always a possibility. If he fails election, then obviously he will be NN. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold as per Suni, and improve as there is a degree of notability asserted. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable. Would suggest a redirect to the constituency article, as per recent precedents, but this needs to be deleted so that the article on the boxer can be moved here. Definitely do not hold off until the election; there's been widespread consensus not to leave this sort of cruft around. In the unlikely event he is elected and becomes notable, we can always recreate the article. Warofdreams talk 15:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not cruft this article has existed for over two years and the subject has notability apart from the recent nomination, all that does is add to his general coverage, as far as I know we don't delete an article so that we cn move some semi notable boxer into the dead mans shoes. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's irrelevant how long the article has existed; this is the first time that it has been discussed here, although I note that a {{notability}} tag has been placed on the page on several occasions. In my view, this article should be deleted. The notability or otherwise of the boxer with the same name is only relevant in deciding whether to move that or not - if you think that they are not notable, you should nominate that article for deletion, too. Warofdreams talk 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well thanks for commenting. I was replying to your comment which is unsupported by any policy .. quote Warofdreams this needs to be deleted so that the article on the boxer can be moved here .. as I know this is unsupported by any policy or guideline
- To be very clear, this needs to be deleted rather than redirected for that reason. Either way, this article should go, as its subject is not notable. Warofdreams talk 21:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well thanks for commenting. I was replying to your comment which is unsupported by any policy .. quote Warofdreams this needs to be deleted so that the article on the boxer can be moved here .. as I know this is unsupported by any policy or guideline
- It's irrelevant how long the article has existed; this is the first time that it has been discussed here, although I note that a {{notability}} tag has been placed on the page on several occasions. In my view, this article should be deleted. The notability or otherwise of the boxer with the same name is only relevant in deciding whether to move that or not - if you think that they are not notable, you should nominate that article for deletion, too. Warofdreams talk 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not cruft this article has existed for over two years and the subject has notability apart from the recent nomination, all that does is add to his general coverage, as far as I know we don't delete an article so that we cn move some semi notable boxer into the dead mans shoes. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 15 April 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.