Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Bradley (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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) —— § erial 10:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Bradley (politician)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

OTRS request - full detail at AfD Darren-M talk 18:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Darren-M talk 18:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VRTS ticket # 2020070710012291 has been received requesting that this article be deleted. The requester states that the article was set up maliciously, that the content is out of date, and that the content is damaging his likelihood of further employment. As a gesture of good faith, I have advised the requester that I will list the article at AfD. I have set expectations with the requester that such deletions are a matter for community consensus, that being listed here is by no means an indication that the article will indeed be deleted, and that I suspect the deletion may be unlikely to succeed. The requester has agreed for me to share this detail in order to raise this request. Darren-M talk 18:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- query - Darren, has the requester withdrawn his belligerent and blustering legal threat which got him NLT blocked? (See User talk:Warren2922; that was before we blocked him for sockpuppeting to get around the NLT block.) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iff the problems described are present,that is an editorial matter, not a deletion matter. The proper course of action is to to discuss such matters on the talk page, not resort to blanking content, making legal threats, and using multiple accounts to try and force a preferred version. This is exactly why we discourage people from editing content where they have a conflict of interest. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A former ~~mayor~~ leader of a major UK city would almost definitely pass Wikipedia:Notability (politics)#Local politicians, even without the coverage in regional and national media surrounding the perjury conviction. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A person in a similar position who never made the news might be a more marginal case, but the subject made himself notable enough to garner significant news coverage: once notable, always notable. We do not judge the article by speculated motivation of the person who initially created it, but rather by its current condition. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT 1 and 4; no valid deletion rationale is expressed here, and whilst Darren-M clearly is not a blocked user, the user who they are inadvertently making this nomination on behalf of is subject to a WP:NLT block, as well as a sockpuppetry block. I am not an OTRS user, so do not have access to the ticket - so to be clear, I cannot say for sure that the user making the OTRS request is the same one who is blocked - but WP:DUCK applies. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet notability. Controversial issues are sourced with reliable sources. I don't see BLP violations here, either, and certainly no reason for deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page is relevant and we don't remove it because the subject doesn't like the details. Any editorial concerns can be addressed but the coverage/subject is notable. -- Dane ^talk 01:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The precise reason for the requested nomination makes it notable. A politician in his capacity convicted for perjury and that has received ample media coverage leads to notability. If the subject is concerned about his future chances of employment, he shouldn't have done it in the first place. We have presented the facts using NPOV. Oaktree b (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet notability. Nika2020 (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2020 (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.