Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Pugsley

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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Pugsley[edit]

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

The phrase "world famous in ~~Poland~~ Sutton" springs to mind. A colorful character but all the references are to Sutton and Croydon newspapers. He does even seem to have made it to London-wide sources, still less national ones. In a straw poll conducted recently in Sutton, three people had never heard of him and two did know of him but agreed that he might not pass muster for Wikipedia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original research much? But yeah, you are probably right. One of my more irresponsible articles.--Laun chba ller 20:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I've had a think about this (and since when was a straw poll of five random people in Sutton a reliable source?), but having read the news articles, I think they're very much local journalists using this guy as an "an finally" piece without him deliberately courting the publicity. Therefore I suggest he's a low profile individual as described in WP:LOWPROFILE and per the BLP guidelines and since Wikipedia is not the news (in Croydon, Sutton or elsewhere and especially not when the news is about a man missing his cat - good grief....), we should exercise restraint in giving him an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I see no evidcne of him being the head of a religious organisation. I see nothing notable in his bio. He looks to me like a crank who has appointed himslef to a grand title. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, purely because this source is from an American (New York) paper and thus is beyond the scope of WP:LOCAL (or whatever the policy is).--Laun chba ller 17:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That single non-local "source" is a web only tabloid that isn't even notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. I confess to having never heard of the New York Daily Sun until now. I see that they also have an article on the Jesus Man of Sutton.[1] Go figure. (haha - I notice that the bread crumbs for those two articles lumps them under the title "click bait".... see Hook, Line and Sinker.) First Light (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2013 (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.