Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Bolton (politician)


 * 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. Following Bolton being elected leader of UKIP, there is now a clear consensus to keep and the issue of GNG is resolved by multiple profiles in British press. Keeping this open would serve no purpose. Fences &amp;  Windows  15:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Henry Bolton (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insignificant person with limited, local coverage. Being a political candidate does not make one notable. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 20:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  20:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * keep As a candidate in the UKIP leadership elections he has frequently made national news recently, e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ukip-anti-islam-anne-marie-waters_uk_59a30c70e4b0821444c3eaa1 If he wins the election at the end of this month he will be more notable so the timing of this AfD is not the best. His notability might be better assessed afterwards.Weburbia (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Candidates are not notable unless there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" (as per WP:POLITICIAN). If he wins, he would "qualify" for an article. Notability isn't based on future possibility. If he wins, the article can be recreated. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that he does not meet any of the notability criteria specific to politicians, but this leads back to the general notability guideline WP:GNG . During the leadership campaign Henry Bolton has already made the news. He is one of the leading candidates and announced a legal challenge against Marie Anne Waters. It has also been reported that Nigel Farage refereed his candidacy and that other MEPs have endorsed him. These matters have been reported in reliable news sources. Whether that qualifies as significant coverage to make him notable at this point is a question of quantity on which we must base our judgement. I think it is worth pointing out that this article has existed for nearly two years and it must be his candidacy in the leadership contest that drew attention to him at this point in time leading to this AfD. There are another three weeks of the election to run and he may make the news again during that time. | Pageview statistics for the article have risen dramatically during the campaign showing that people are looking at the page for information because they have seen his name in the press. It would be odd timing and a disservice to Wikipedia users to delete it now. I assume good faith on the part of the proposer but I think some people might think if the page is deleted now, that the action is politically motivated. It would be ironic if that made the papers. It is common sense to wait until after the election before making any decision. Weburbia (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Routine election coverage doesn't imply notability. Coverage of the leadership election makes the leadership election notable, not the candidates. Some of the other candidates have received significant coverage (such as Waters). Bolton has not. WP:ARTICLEAGE explains how inclusion doesn't imply notability, and notability is the criterion that's important here. When a user who considers an article non-notable nominates it for deletion is immaterial - a subject is either notable or not. Arguing otherwise strikes me as recentism. Ralbegen (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As has been discussed before, WP:NPOV and good faith should not be presumed on the part of Ralbegen. He was caught vandalising the UKIP Leadership Election Page by assigning non-party colours of his choice to each individual UKIP leadership candidate, despite them all belonging to UKIP. Either show no colours, or the same party colour for all. His subsequent preposterous defence that he had obtained the colours from the candidates' own election material is absurd on grounds of the physics of colour-matching alone. Further, the same colours were deployed on the election webpage for his own political party, the Liberal Democrats, which he also edited. Delors1991 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * has since been indefinitely blocked for legal threats. Bondegezou (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete candidates for party leadership are not notable. His coverage is no more than routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - He doesn't inherit notability from the leadership election he's standing in, and he definitely doesn't meet notability criteria in and of himself. Ralbegen (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Unreasonable: By that token, the webpages for all recent UK Libdem party officers should be deleted. Evidently this Libdem is unable to comprehend:

"Commander of a multinational strategic intelligence unit in Bosnia  Head of International Police in Central Croatia   Liaison officer to the Serbian Internal Security Forces in Kosovo during the war   Humanitarian crisis management adviser to the Office of the Albanian Prime Minister   War crimes investigations and exhumations of suspected war crimes victims   United Nations District Governor and Head of Local Government in Kosovo   Head of Regional Ceasefire Operations, Skopje, Macedonia   Strategic Border Management Adviser to the Macedonian government   Transnational Organised Crime Adviser to the Macedonian Minister of Interior   Expert Advisor on reform of the Georgian State Border Guard Command and Control   Head of border strategies, programmes and projects across the 57 member states of the Organisation for Security & Cooperation in Europe   Coalition Stabilisation Leader ('Supported Civilian Commander') for the coalition forces in Musa Qala and Now Zad Districts, Northern Helmand EU Common Security & Defence Policy Crisis Response Team, Libya Strategic and Operational Planner, EU Common Security & Defence Policy, Brussels Head of the EU Crisis Response Team in Ukraine." Delors1991 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * He was democratically elected by the party... Like all UK political leaders are. — Calvin999  15:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per others, but there's useful content here that should be merged into UK Independence Party leadership election, 2017. Bondegezou (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per reasons listed above. ALPolitico (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Candidates for the leadership of a political party are not automatically presumed notable for that fact in and of itself, if they don't have any other notability claim — such as actually having served as an MP in Parliament — alongside that, and the campaign-related coverage itself does not aid passage of WP:GNG since every candidate in the race will always automatically have some. He can be mentioned in the article on the leadership election, certainly, but he needs more than to just be a candidate in the leadership election to qualify for a standalone BLP. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins, but nothing here entitles him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "They don't have any other notability claim?" Really, Bearcat? Is your POV [WP:NPOV]-compliant?

"Commander of a multinational strategic intelligence unit in Bosnia  Head of International Police in Central Croatia   Liaison officer to the Serbian Internal Security Forces in Kosovo during the war   Humanitarian crisis management adviser to the Office of the Albanian Prime Minister   War crimes investigations and exhumations of suspected war crimes victims   United Nations District Governor and Head of Local Government in Kosovo   Head of Regional Ceasefire Operations, Skopje, Macedonia   Strategic Border Management Adviser to the Macedonian government   Transnational Organised Crime Adviser to the Macedonian Minister of Interior   Expert Advisor on reform of the Georgian State Border Guard Command and Control   Head of border strategies, programmes and projects across the 57 member states of the Organisation for Security & Cooperation in Europe   Coalition Stabilisation Leader ('Supported Civilian Commander') for the coalition forces in Musa Qala and Now Zad Districts, Northern Helmand EU Common Security & Defence Policy Crisis Response Team, Libya Strategic and Operational Planner, EU Common Security & Defence Policy, Brussels Head of the EU Crisis Response Team in Ukraine." Delors1991 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * keep for as long as there's an article on John Rees-Evans. Harfarhs (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , that's not how AfD works. If you feel John Rees-Evans should be deleted, you can bring it to AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was being facetious. Naturally one cannot literally defend the Bolton article with such a statement as mine. I'm only saying that the rules on BLP articles enumerated earlier in the discussion don't always seem to be held to. Harfarhs (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't think an article's subject meets notability criteria, you can bring it to AfD. It's usually not helpful to be facetious, especially on an AfD, as decisions are made on the strengths of arguments rather than the number of people of each opinion! Ralbegen (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"Commander of a multinational strategic intelligence unit in Bosnia  Head of International Police in Central Croatia   Liaison officer to the Serbian Internal Security Forces in Kosovo during the war   Humanitarian crisis management adviser to the Office of the Albanian Prime Minister   War crimes investigations and exhumations of suspected war crimes victims   United Nations District Governor and Head of Local Government in Kosovo   Head of Regional Ceasefire Operations, Skopje, Macedonia   Strategic Border Management Adviser to the Macedonian government   Transnational Organised Crime Adviser to the Macedonian Minister of Interior   Expert Advisor on reform of the Georgian State Border Guard Command and Control   Head of border strategies, programmes and projects across the 57 member states of the Organisation for Security & Cooperation in Europe   Coalition Stabilisation Leader ('Supported Civilian Commander') for the coalition forces in Musa Qala and Now Zad Districts, Northern Helmand EU Common Security & Defence Policy Crisis Response Team, Libya Strategic and Operational Planner, EU Common Security & Defence Policy, Brussels Head of the EU Crisis Response Team in Ukraine." are, except in the view of UKIP's political enemies, in themselves more than sufficient grounds for inclusion. Delors1991 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * keep -
 * Firstly, exactly none of those claims are present in the article as written. Secondly, exactly none of them count as notability claims in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage about them to clear WP:GNG — the sourcing present here is entirely in the context of the leadership campaign itself, with not even one source present that's covering him for anything else. So no, you don't get to point one ounce of sarcasm at me for what I said — because what I said was a completely accurate assessment of the article as actually written and sourced. Bearcat (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  14:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * comment (supporting my earlier keep) The proposer of this AfD described the article as "Insignificant person with limited, local coverage" but things have moved on during the leadership campaign and the article now includes references from The Guardian, Express, Huffington Post, Irish Times and other national news sources. These are not just listing him as a candidate in the leadership election. They provide substantial commentary on differing aspects of his views. These confirm that it was an inopportune moment to have this AfD and he has achieved notability since it was instigated.Weburbia (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment If a politician is only famous because of standing in an election, then they can be covered under the article for that election. That's the standard approach. All that coverage you mention is about Bolton as a candidate in the leadership election. More broadly, isn't it time we close this AfD? We've got 7 deletes to 3 keeps, of whom one is indef blocked and one explicitly says s/he was being facetious. It's only who is left favouring keep: and I do respect your views, Weburbia, but you're clearly in the minority on this one. Bondegezou (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Other candidates such as John Rees-Evans and Anne Marie Waters are also only notable because of their standing in this election and a previous one. There is too much material there to transfer to the election pages and to do so even for one candidate would create an unbalanced article where some candidates have more info about them than others. I don't agree that the other two keeps should be discounted and this is not a vote. Most of the deletes came earlier on before Bolton featured in a number of national news reports so the arguments given may now be obsolete. This AfD should be closed without deletion because the situation is in too much flux for a proper discussion to take place or for a consensus to form. The number of pageviews on the article has increased even more in recent days. A more stable discussion could take place when the dust has settled after the election with enough time passing to know what if any role Bolton will play in UKIP. A new AfD could be raised at that time if notability is still disputed. Weburbia (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a move to delete Waters' article and you can see the discussion at Articles for deletion/Anne Marie Waters, and you can see the sort of pre-leadership-contest coverage that ultimately swayed the decision. Possibly the Rees-Evans article should go: but that's not a reason to keep this article, it's an article to delete John Rees-Evans. You are, of course, free to nominate John Rees-Evans for deletion yourself. I agree that it can be sensible in some contexts to wait for an article or events to settle down before nominating it for deletion, but I don't believe Wikipedia should end up having "temporary" articles for all election candidates, which would be the end result of your proposed approach. We have an approach on Wikipedia for elections: if someone isn't previously notable, then we cover them within the election article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not saying the the other pages are a precedent for keeping this page. I know that argument is not valid. I am saying that the argument that content can be moved to the election page is invalid. This is not a temporary page for the election. It has been here since 2015, and yes I know that age is not a justification either. My argument is that concensus cannot be established when notability is changing significantly over the course of the AfD because earlier arguments are now obsolete. The only valid conclusion at this point is therefore "no consensus." Weburbia (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is your approach for elections documented as a Wikipedia policy? If not I don't think it applies. Each case is different.Weburbia (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm editorialising your dispute, but it seems to me that your disagreement comes down to whether election coverage of a candidate counts towards the candidate's notability or the election's notability. All of the references being used are coverage of the election which happens to relate to Bolton, rather than coverage of Bolton that happens to relate to the election – which is what I would consider routine election coverage that doesn't count towards Bolton's meeting notability guidelines, as it's not significant coverage of him as an individual. I hope that makes sense, and I hope I've got the area of divergence right! Ralbegen (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree that all the coverage relating to Bolton is election coverage. The article in the Express today was about the proposals regarding the EU army which is a separate current news topic. Bolton's comment was relevant because of his expertise in this field. The fact that he is in a leadership election was of course mentioned simply because it adds colour to the report and elevates his relevance, but that was a side issue to the reports main focus. This shows that his notability has increased beyond the bounds of the election. Weburbia (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

A lot of material has now been added into the article by different people since this AfD was started. This includes coverage in both local and national news (BBC, Guardian, Mirror, Express) with detailed quotes on his views. This is not by any means limited to coverage of him as an election candidate. His political views have been sought by national press on topics of border security and military matters because of his expertise in these areas. A significant amount of the coverage predates the present UKIP leadership election. This establishes his notability in line with WP:GNG. I judge the article to be balanced and based on reliable sources. I hope that when this AfD is closed these changes will be taken into account and that it will be noticed that the original rationale and delete requests came before these were done. It would be wrong to conclude a consensus on the basis of these earlier statements. For the record I have never met Henry Bolton and have no involvement in his political campaigns.Weburbia (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As WP:POL says: A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. Bolton has been touched upon independently in multiple news articles, but not written about in multiple news feature articles. I'm not very interested in pursuing the semantic argument further as I think I've already put across my reasoning, but of the references as they stand as I write this: [1], [3], [5], [8], [13], [16], [17], [24] and [25] could not arguably count towards notability guidelines. [2], [4], [7], [9], [10], [14], [15], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] and [26] are routine campaign coverage. That leaves [6], [11], [12] and [27]. Of those, I think several more articles like [11] could be sufficient for notability, the others I don't think count as "significant press coverage" of Bolton, rather coverage of other things which Bolton has provided quotes about. Also: it's entirely clear that you're arguing in good faith: you don't need to explain your distance from the subject! Ralbegen (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong but I think you meant WP:NPOL. I would class the references as follows: [11] and [12] call on his expertise as a security expert and so are independent of any election. He has substantial coverage in those articles. [4], [8], [7], [9], [10], [14], [15], [18], [20], [21], [22], [23], [26] are campaigns reports in which Henry Bolton plays an essential role in the story. The rest are routine campaign coverage and sources for supporting information. I make that 15 reports giving him significant press coverage. Five of those are in national press [8], [11], [12], [22], [23]. You appear to be discounting campaign coverage and I disagree about that where he is a major part of the story. I think it is enough to establish notability. It certainly refuted the original position that he is an "Insignificant person with limited, local coverage" but I appreciate that you disagree. Weburbia (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, WP:NPOL. I think I've referenced it as WP:POL on several occasions before — whoops. I don't think that somebody being called on as a subject matter expert in news articles counts as coverage of that person (that would be a vastly too broad inclusion criterion), and that campaign coverage of Bolton is in-depth coverage of the election rather than of Bolton. Still, I think we've identified our impasse and I'm happy to leave it there! Ralbegen (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * From WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." In my opinion this applies in these news reports referenced. However I agree that this is our impasse and am also happy to leave it at that. Weburbia (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - While most coverage is routine, there are enough articles that discuss him that we can verify his existence and that he does what the article says (which is why we have notability criteria). Also, he was the head of a few border organizations (see ). Thus, I think that the info in the article is verifiable, making it pass WP:GNG. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  11:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Without being the subject of such articles, he just doesn't meet WP:GNG. Routine/passing mentions do not suffice. Ifnord (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG specifically states that he "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" but I would be interested to know which of the references from the article you looked at because in most of them he is not getting just a "routine/passing mention."Weburbia (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I went through all the references I considered a good primary source: "Kent PCC election: Conservative Matthew Scott wins". BBC. 6 May 2016.,  "Fears refugee children could die in English channel as desperate migrants risk lives in crossings". Mirror. 30 May 2016.,  "Revealed: the 11 candidates vying to become next Ukip leader". Evening Standard. 4 August 2017.,  "Ukip risks becoming 'UK Nazi party' if it selects wrong leader". The Guardian. 11 September 2017.,  "Woman gives birth on Southeastern train arriving at St Pancras... but calls her daughter Victoria". Evening Standard. 16 May 2016. I did not include primarily online news or blogs/twitter/etc. Ifnord (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - he just won the UKIP leadership election. Fouriels (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as he's just been announced as UKIP leader. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Snow keep as he has just been elected leader.--Penbat (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep' as above. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep' as above. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Snow keep as he is now leader of UKIP he is clearly notable. PatGallacher (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Has just been made leader of UKIP, many sites have written articles in the last half hour  . AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Keep There is a lot info here which is sourced. He is now the leader of a party which has substantial following in the UK. — Calvin999  15:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable as UKIP leader. Ollie231213 (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2017 (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.