Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian John Flook

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus. Mackensen (talk) 05:30, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adrian John Flook
Where does Wikipedia stand on minor British politicians? Adrian John Flook receives 74 hits on google. Is this enough to justify an article on Wikipedia? If so, how do politicians differ in measurement of importance from other notable figures within fields such as entertainment, science, technology and other subcultures? GRider\talk 18:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Though I personally disagree, consensus seems to be that anybody who gets elected for a governmental position is worthy of inclusion. Radiant! 20:27, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC) I actually doubt that it is consensual. Radiant! 13:05, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * If this is a general concensus, even for minor politicians, should it then become an official guideline somewhere, rather than an unwritten rule? I cannot locate any document which states we are bound to include any and all political figures.  GRider\talk 20:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, we should talk about this. Anyway including any voted official would be silly, as every city has several dozens of them. I believe they should instead be included in the appropriate city article. (qv discussion on Chicago eldermen, on feb/15th). Oh, and yes that means I vote to delete this one. Radiant! 09:23, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * For me, this sort of article is spot on the line. Abstain. Wyss 20:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, since the trend seems to be to include all members of national legislative bodies (Representatives and Senators in the U.S., MPs in Canada and the U.K., etc.). --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It should be possible to write an encyclopedic article about any MP. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:58, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely one could argue it should be possible to write an encyclopedic article about anyone, period? What distinguishes this person from my neighbor down the street?  GRider\talk 17:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Grider. Delete. Radiant! 13:05, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 07:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep.--Centauri 12:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - David Gerard 23:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't see how MPs can be not encyclopedic while members of US Congress are (and some people want to have articles on people who unsuccessfully ran for Congress). Keep because he's a politician on a national level. Any smaller and I'd likely have voted to delete. -R. fiend 23:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)