Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Councillor Roy Oldham


 * 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 Deleted as A7 by ClockworkSoul  SkierRMH  ( talk ) 17:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Councillor Roy Oldham

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

Article "Roy Oldham" has already been blocked for creation after separate debate, but article creator appears to have tried adding a job title "Councillor" in order to come up with a article name that isn't blocked. If article on Roy Oldham is to be added to Wikipedia, article name should be "Roy Oldham" and not "Councillor Roy Oldham" or "Samuel Roy Oldham". Oscarthecat (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Log for the BLP deletion here. Dunno where any debate was, though. --Dhartung | Talk 08:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the deletion. I tried to edit one of the previous entries so that it became balanced, each time i did this it was reverted.


 * Delete per WP:BLP, maybe speedy deletion as an attack page, as there is no neutral version to revert to. Protection may be a good idea as it has been created with this title after Roy Oldham was protected. The user who created the page should probably be blocked for harassment (i.e. the user's previous edit to a user talk page, not to this article), BLP violation and probably sock puppetry. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 14:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: As far as I can see, the article does little other than disparage the subject. WilliamH (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Check which matter in the page is true. Does Defamation apply here? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe some the content could be included in an article if he is notable enough (although WP:UNDUE is an issue) but an article consisting of one criticism, apparently valid but partly repeated, combined with trivial information and collected and presented in a way that portray the subject negatively, is not compatible with NPOV. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 15:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Note: I have edited this comment after reading the article again. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 16:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2008 (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.