Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Barker (Civil Servant)


 * 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    No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ann Barker (Civil Servant)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. Is this civil servant senior enough to warrant an article? Computerjoe 's talk 20:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N §FreeRangeFrog 21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Has this nomination passed WP:BEFORE? It doesn't seem so as the topic is evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Many are for another Ann Barker and I question whether mentions are trivial. Computerjoe 's talk 12:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously we use the sources that relate to this Ann Barker. I question whether you have done the slightest work on this topic per WP:BEFORE or whether this is just a drive-by deletion grounded in ignorance? Colonel Warden (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Does been quoted a couple of times consitute notability or is it simply trivial coverage? Perhaps if Colonel Warden is suggesting I should read WP:BEFORE, he should familiarise himself with WP:CIVIL. Back to the argument, WP:N requires 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'. My problem is whether coverage is significant or trivial. Computerjoe 's talk 14:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominations for deletion should be cross-examined closely as deletion is a serious matter. WP:BEFORE is a sensible and proper part of the deletion process so please tell us which of its steps you have followed.  Colonel Warden (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would argue I am not being examined in this debate, rather the article is. You are electing to make this debate ad hominem as opposed to about the matter on hand. Please would you tell me whether you consider these reports to be sufficiently notable? I have expressed my views but you haven't expanded on yours. That would seem to be the logical next step, as opposed to questioning the events leading to the nomination. Computerjoe 's talk 15:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I indicated above that coverage of this person in the sources provided such as The Guardian is adequate evidence of notability. I have further edited the article to improve the format of its references.  I have also asked whether the process of WP:BEFORE has been followed in this case.  This is relevant information since details of your discussions with other editors about the topic, your searches for sources and consideration of alternative to deletion might save us the chore of doing these things ourselves. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, it's irrelevant. My issue is that the coverage is not sufficient. And, at any rate, a Google News Search only takes a few seconds thus it is not really a 'chore'. If anything, it is a much bigger chore for the Wikipedia community to read the steps I have followed, which you ordered me to post. You made several implications such as my being lazy, my not taking AfD serious and you implied I was ignorant. To me, that constitutes a personal attack rather than helping the deletion process. Computerjoe 's talk 17:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is anyone who gives a quote or opinion to The Guardian automatically notable? Computerjoe 's talk 17:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have requested intervention at Wikiquette alerts. Computerjoe 's talk 15:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom. Afterboth (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * — Afterboth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete as nn per BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. Coverage doesn't establish notability. Verbal   chat  17:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No prejudice to recreation if she does attract substantial coverage in reliable sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep do to WP:POLITICIAN which has guidelines which I believe have been met. The example given, says even local mayors and judges, just getting local media coverage, are notable.  I found that surprising.  Is there any mayor anywhere that hasn't gotten some coverage in their local paper? Dream Focus (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But is it 'significant press coverage' she has? Computerjoe 's talk 19:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * http://browse.guardian.co.uk/search?search_target=%2Fsearch&fr=cb-guardian&search=%22Ann+Barker%22&N= The first three of the four articles listed are about her. Having read through it, I believe its notable.  And the Guardian is a major news source in that country. Dream Focus (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Civil servants are not politicians, and wp:politician doesn't apply. Verbal   chat  20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * She is not a civil servant of that sort. She is, amongst other things, a judge and they are explicitly listed in WP:POLITICIAN. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Chair of the Complaints Audit Committee is notable. Judges are listed in politicians only because most US judges are elected. DGG (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather 'a' complaints audit committee. According to the article its only the one for the immigration service. Computerjoe 's talk 15:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as per above, references include Guardian, The Independent, and The British Times. Ikip (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.