Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Abrahams (Labour party donor)


 * 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. Wizardman 03:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

David Abrahams (Labour party donor)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

What is notable about this person? Wikipedia is not the on line version of the national Enquirer. This is at best a coatrack, and at worst a BLP smear job. Avi (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly meets notability requirements as there are lots and lots of newspaper stories. I can't see any merit in this nomination. JASpencer (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - article appear to fail WP:NPOV guidelines and the individual lacks sufficient notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) Mh29255 17:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Donorgate per WP:BLP1E; agree with Brewcrewer. Mh29255 (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per JASpencer. Sufficiently notable - though I think it needs cleaning up, and additional references, but, hell, it's not alone in those shortcomings. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - subject is now known to everyone in the UK and there is a serious ongoing police investigation. This is front page news in the UK in the "broadsheets". This isn't a National Enquirer type story. Citizensmith (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per JASpencer. Rwendland (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into Donorgate per WP:BLP1E. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep seeing as we are citing two dozen different sources about the subject one should expect to find him on Wikipedia as well. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep Colonel Warden (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Citizensmith, clearly meets WP:BIO and similar inclusionary guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable as evidenced by references supplied. Any deficiences in the text can be seen to by normal editing. Deletion not necessary or desirable. Thincat (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge current news item into Donorgate per Brewcrewer. Donorgate is what is notable, not this person regardless of how notable they consider themselves. MLA (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - to delete such a very well known and copiously referenced individual who remains in the public eye could only be a political act. Graemedavis (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Gimme and N! Gimme an O! Gimme a T! Gimme an A! Gimme a B! Gimme an L! Gimme an E! NOTABLE!! Lobojo (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep John254 01:04, 22 December 2007 (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.