Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donal Blaney


 * 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 that I hereby acknowledge in spite of the sock-ridden votes, Dave and Aaron's opinons are duly noted, but there is a consensus to delete the article. (2/6/0) - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Donal Blaney
Former Chairpersons of a politcal party's youth organisation and local councillors are not inherently notable in themselves. Timrollpickering 10:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. He can come back when he's an MP. BTLizard 10:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as he's not merely a former chairman of the YCs and a former local council, he currently heads an influential youth training foundation and is a regular media commentator. People don't have to be MPs to be important.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.86.203.89 (talk • contribs).
 * Note: Above comment added by anonymous user. Timrollpickering 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Other executives of YBF were VfDed a while ago - see Articles for deletion/Ben Pickering and Articles for deletion/Greg Smith (politician). The article does not cover these claims to be a media commentator (or established just to what extent) or why YBF is important that its executives count as notable in their own right. I agree one doesn't have to be an MP or devolved assembly member to be notable in politics but that does not in itself make everyone notable. Timrollpickering 09:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Won't someone PLEASE think of the children he has helped train. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.45.113.212 (talk • contribs).
 * Note: Above comment added by anonymous user. Timrollpickering 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Timrollpickering is a big girls blouse who needs to get a life. Just because someone posts anonymously does not mean their point is invalid, it isn't everybody who wants to share their views with the world to show what a learned and intelligent person they are.  Address the point not your vanity.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.86.203.89 (talk • contribs).
 * The anonymous user should look at other AfDs to see that both this is standard practice and contributers are strongly encouraged to log in to prevent sock puppetry, especially from ISPs that have made only three contributions, all on AfDs. As for vanity, I note that these objections were posted on the same day that I received an email from the subject themselves. Timrollpickering 09:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This exposure of a private email, if true and not a figment of your imagination, is a gross invasion of privacy and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. User:Hannibal_s
 * Correct. Anonymity doesn't make the rationale invalid.  What makes it invalid is that "please think of the children!" has no connection whatsoever with our Policies and guidelines. Uncle G 16:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - these days the extra-Parliamentary coalition of conservative groups is becoming more important in preparing the Tory Party for government, much as happened in the 1970s. The YBF is a part of this and as such the people behind it are of note, not least when they are former national youth leaders and elected officials with links to figures such as Anthony Seldon. SarkisZeronian
 * Note: User is a new login whose only contributions so far are on this page. Timrollpickering 09:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I don't understand why that means you can't answer his point? It's a fair one after all. User:Hannibal_s
 * It is standard when watching an Article for Deletion page to note when votes are made either by anonymous ISPs or by logins that have either just been created or have made fewer than 50 non-minor contributions. This should be kept separate from the actual issues involved. Timrollpickering 11:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Does BTLizard not count as anonymous too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SarkisZeronian (talk • contribs).
 * No because they have a registered login that they post from and have made a significant number of contributions. I take it from your questions that you are not familiar with the policies and processes of Wikipedia. Try WP:VFD for more info. Timrollpickering 09:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: So in Timrollpickering Land how many contributions must an individual make before you decide they are valid?User:Hannibal_s
 * It is not "Timrollpickering Land" and I find it telling you feel a need to resort to personal abuse. It has always been standard practice in Wikipedia when seeking a consensus to note when votes one way or the other come from users with little history, given the problems there have been with sockpuppets. Timrollpickering 11:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The failure of the delete lobby to address the valid and strong points made by the keep lobby and instead to indulge in attempts to silence it suggest a personal vendetta. Anyone might think Timrollpickering and Blaney had a history, or that Timmy's thwarted ambition colours his contributions.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hannibal s (talk • contribs).
 * Note: Again comment is unsigned.
 * Comment Again a resort to personal abuse. To my knowledge I have never spoken to Blaney in person and probably never been in the same room as him, unless we were both at a gathering. I am merely following standard Wikipedia practice that has been followed on numerous pages seeking consensus in the past. Timrollpickering 11:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment trying to separate the debate on the AfD itself from all the personal abuse and lack of understanding of Wikipedia practices. For a page to exist in Wikipedia it must prove inherent notability in itself. Claims about being "a media commentator" on an AfD page are not enough - if this is relevant information and makes the subject notable, be bold and add the information to the page. In regards the role of YBF you need to prove not that the organisation is notable (that's a case for any AfD on it, for the record I would support keeping that article) but that being the executive of it confers notability on the individual. As I note above other executives have had pages created on Wikipedia and AfDed (with considerably less fuss). Timrollpickering 11:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I am interested who is behind activist and policy groups that feed the Conservative Party, the more full disclosure of these things the better. The repeated failure of those who want to keep these things secret and delete this entry are an affront to democracy.  Their insistence on playing the man and not the ball exposes the deficiency of their arguments. User:Hannibal_s
 * Note This is second vote by the same login. Mea culpa - the confusion arose from an edit conflict making it difficult to check the full page. Timrollpickering 11:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction The confusion arose because Hannibal_s did not sign his first vote. Vote 1 and Vote 2. Timrollpickering 11:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment First off you are repeatedly attacking me for following the Wikipedia conventions. If you want to "play the ball and not the man" then redirect your criticism of those conventions to the discussion pages on deletion policy. Secondly this is not about keeping "activist and policy groups" secret - this discussion is in no way about whether or not to delete the Young Britons' Foundation page. I have addressed the arguments for keeping aboce. Timrollpickering 11:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Donal Blaney has gotten virtually no press coverage, as one would expect if he were an activist worth covering in Wikipedia.  WP:BIO has fairly clear guidelines on the inclusion of political bios and this one doesn't pass. Mango juice talk 14:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mango juice talk 14:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete for a lack of both notability and reliable sources. All I could find was a Guardian article mentioning an accusation of racism. That's not WP:BIO for me. --Huon 16:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per comments already made above. -- Roleplayer 17:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (and from a non sockpuppet too!). Being head of Conservative Future is notable enough for me. Dave 17:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Blaney is not the first chairperson of Conservative Future to be listed for deletion. Paul Bristow was deleted last year, whilst Nick Vaughan did not generate consensus. Nor do there appear to be pages on chairs of Labour Students (except those who've subsequently become notable) or for that matter leaders of the Young Republicans or the Young Democrats of America. Timrollpickering 10:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Donal was a chairMAN not a chairperson, and he's not listed here because he happened to be a former head of CF, that's just a part of his CV, he's listed here because he is Chief Executive of the Young Britons' Foundation. You seem to be missing this fundamental point, Timmy-boy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.86.203.89  (talk • contribs).
 * Comment First off chairperson, chair, chairman all mean the same thing colloqually. Secondly the comment was made in direct response to the suggestion that heads of political parties' youth wings are inherently notable and that is the point to address there. As for being chief executive of YBF, I repeat that there is nothing to show why being chief executive of the organisation is inherently notable. See the deletions of other executives at Articles for deletion/Ben Pickering and Articles for deletion/Greg Smith (politician) Timrollpickering 16:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Seems to pass WP:BIO, though just barely. --Aaron 19:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. --Charlesknight 11:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per no. --MaNeMeBasat 14:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - as far as I can tell arguments to keep are based on three factors.
 * Young Britons Foundation. I'd say that's notable as an organisation but not notable enough for its officers to merit separate articles.
 * Conservative Future. Certainly notable, and serving officers may derive notability from it. Not former ones, however.
 * London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Former opposition councillors in London boroughs do not on those grounds merit articles in Wikipedia.
 * I therefore see no reason to change my original position, which was Delete. BTLizard 11:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per comments already made above. Refer to guidelines: this is a vanity article.  Keep if it includes allegations of racism levelled at Blaney. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.226.95 (talk • contribs).
 * Note: Above comment added by anonymous user. Timrollpickering 16:59, 21 September 2006 (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.