Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Barratt


 * 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. Qwfp has shown insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, and consensus is that her post does not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Betty Barratt

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

non-notable, possible COI page VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The originator of this page, user:Wycombe92, along with blocked user User:Hennyxlb, are possible relations of the article subject, having added material about her and her family to various pages. See here. In addition, Betty Barratt herself may not be notable enough to have her own article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Probable keep. I don't know anything about the position of "Mayor of High Wycombe", but WP:POLITICIAN would lead me to initially presume that she meets WP:N.
 * Now that's not to deny that the article is complete crap; it is. It's written in a non-encyclopedic, fawning fashion.  But that's not grounds for deletion.  I'd like to hear more from people who know more.  Un  sch  ool  03:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It is not a political position; follow the link - it's an odd old curiousity position. The position is notable, but a person is not necc notable by holding the pos (IMHO); this person does not meet WP:GNG (as far as I can tell) - thus, delete.  Chzz  ►  03:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but reduce to stub. Mayors may or may not be notable depending on the circumstances, but heads of County Councils certainly are. However, the article is so blatantly promotional there only things worth keeping are the first twenty-six words. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Although the article itself is at present confused about whether she was "Chairman of Buckinghamshire council" (first sentence) or "Chairman of High Wycombe" (Chairman section), its last reference makes clear that she was chairman of Wycombe District Council 1996/7, which doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN criterion 1 as it is not a "first-level sub-national political office". A search of Google News archive does not find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources sufficient to meet WP:BIO (nor does Google Books or Scholar). --Qwfp (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I was just coming here to post that I can find no evidence of Barratt ever being chair of Bucks County Council - I see Qwfp got here before me.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. She doesn't appear to meet the GNG, and certainly not WP:POLITICIAN - Mayor of a town, and Chairman of a District Council don't qualify.  Chris Neville-Smith says leaders of County Councils are notable, whilst that is the case, even if this had been a CC, she wasn't its leader, she was its Chairman, which may be a notable position, but occupants I don't think would be.  So, for so many reasons, delete. --Saalstin (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know High Wycombe well, it being a half hour's drive or so from my house. It's hardly a major metropolis, and its mayor wields virtually no power.  Were this the mayor of a European town, which in most cases is a position of real responsibility, I would !vote otherwise, but the English system is different.  I'm positive the Mayor of High Wycome is not a notable position. Betty Barratt could, potentially, be notable for other reasons if she had received significant coverage in reliable sources.  But she has not and is not, and her name is not a plausible search term. After due consideration, I can see no basis on which this article can be saved, so I must go with delete.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  13:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But...S Marshall, she has her own parade! Do I detect jealousy here? Drmies (talk) 19:55, 14 August 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.