Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elwyn Watkins


 * 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 as the rough consensus seems to favor retention. Any further discussions regarding merging can be handled outside of AFD. –MuZemike 22:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Elwyn Watkins

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject of the article has been an unsuccessful candidate for election to Parliament, and was a local councillor; it is generally accepted that neither is a claim of notability in itself. It is possible to argue that he is notable because of the rare legal case he fought to overturn the 2010 election result, but I would contend that it is the case itself that is notable rather than the litigant. All relevant information about the case is contained in the article about the resulting by-election; so I suggest deleting the biography and then replacing with a redirect to this article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Only notable for one event; ample precedent that just being a parliamentary candidate is insufficient. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Watkins is more than just a (former) parliamentary candidate. He is responsible for challenging the general election result which found an MP guilty of a criminal offence and voided the MPs election, prompting their removal as an MP and a by-election. This is far from a regular occurrence, the last time an election was voided like this was in 1997 and it was under an election law that had not been used in 99 years. He was of course the target of the statements which the court found were illegal. I suggest he meets the criteria set out at WP:POLITICIAN regarding candidates: ...such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Adambro (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The media are wrong to state that the section invoked by Watkins had not been invoked in 99 years; see Miranda Grell for one, and the court judgment cites other occasions as precedents. But even if so, that does not make the litigant notable. We need multiple independent sources on the subject of Elwyn Watkins, not on his election petition or election candidatures. I have found none. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep/possibly re-work/re-name. Clearly Watkins does not meet notability purely as a councillor and unsuccessful Parliamentary candidate, but, also clearly, an unsuccessful candidate can still be notable more generally under WP:GNG. The events around the election court case and subsequent by-election are clearly very significant, notwithstanding precisely when the law was last invoked (although thanks to Sam Blacketer's usual precision on that matter). For me, Timrollpickering's WP:ONEEVENT argument is the most relevant. WP:ONEEVENT says, "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." Watkins' role in the event was clearly very significant, and I feel the event was very significant (to UK politics). I don't agree with Sam Blacketer that the event is adequately covered under the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2011 article, although it is better covered under Phil Woolas. However, there is no article specifically about the event. It seems to me that what we should do to follow WP:ONEEVENT is create Watkins v Woolas about the court case, its background and associated appeals, then re-direct Elwyn Watkins there! In the absence of someone more legally minded doing that, I'd keep this article, but I can see the arguments both ways. If this article is deleted, I suggest re-direction to Phil Woolas rather than Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2011. As a final observation, I think the analogy with the Miranda Grell article (which I note I created) would suggest that this article should be kept: Watkins is more notable than Grell. There was an AfD for Miranda Grell, not that I can find it, but the decision was to keep. Bondegezou (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Link for Miranda Grell AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge, probably to the article about the by-election. The by-election, and the court case surrounding it, are both notable chapters in the history of this parliament, and Elwyn Watkins played an important role in it, but he doesn't seem to have any coverage independent of these events, so this is a clear WP:BIO1E. However, this should be merged properly, to make sure no information in this article is lost if it isn't already in the article of the merge destination.. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep /strongly support the positions of Bondegezou. Material is not covered sufficiently elsewhere and very notable (disagree about his comparison of Grell compared to Watkins though as Watkins is the victim whereas Grell was the perpetrator). The reason for notability is because this is a case occurring in General Election seat and therefore had a huge amount of coverage, the Grell case was merely a local election.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete a failed candidate. Alternatively merge into new article on unsuccessful UK tactical voting. 86.161.31.200 (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to the bye-election article, whose background section ought to be expanded. Since he was not elected, he fails WP:POLITICIAN.  However the circumstances of the by-election need coverage in more than the Phil Woolas article.  I do not think we usually have by-election articles, as it is sufficient to put the results in the constituency article, but this is the first occasion in about a century that an election court has overturned an election result for misconduct.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact we do have articles specifically on all recent Parliamentary by-elections - see Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2011 and explore away with the box at the bottom. There seems to be a general belief that all by-elections are notable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I am more used to editing constituency articles, where people have frequently provided a link to a non-existent by-election article.  However, this error does not invalidate the point that I sought to make; in fact it probably strengthens it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable for the court case and subsequent coverage rather than as a politician. -  Gallo glass  06:50, 21 January 2011 (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.