Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian G. Walker (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 19:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Ian G. Walker
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable businessman and political candidate. Routine election coverage which is not sufficient for non-successful candidates. Past AfD seems to have rested on OBE, which he does not appear to have and which is by consensus not sufficient to confer notability. Ralbegen (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- notability not established in any field. Quis separabit?  20:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win — if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable as a politician. But this article cites no reliable sources at all, instead merely linkfarming a directory of primary source links to directly affiliated "references" like his own campaign website and the websites of organizations he was employed by, and it makes no claim of preexisting notability that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have reliable source coverage. I don't know where the OBE claim in the original discussion came from, because the article text doesn't state or source that Walker has an OBE, and didn't even state or source that at the time of the original discussion either — and even if it were actually verifiable at all, we still only accept the higher ranks (CBE and above) as a notability claim, not the lower MBE or OBE ranks. Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete unelected canddiates for parliament are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article was created, and survived its previous AfD, in 2006. Its subject seems first to have been adopted as a candidate for a political post (South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner - though this is not mentioned in the article) in 2014. Being an unelected political candidate certainly does not make a non-notable person notable - but equally it does not make a notable person non-notable. We should be bearing in mind that if the subject was notable (by today's standards) before 2014, he is still notable. Having said that, the prior notability of the subject is definitely not obvious. A lack of inline citations was allowable even in BLPs in 2006, and the article does not appear to have been heavily edited in recent years - but that is no more than an argument to allow some limited time (a few days) for any interested editors to find and add reliable sources (preferably not local to Sheffield) that are now either archived or off-line. And even by the standards of 2006, the previous AfD does not look particularly safe - during the AfD, an IP editor introduced a whole load of unsubstantiated claims (including the already-mentioned OBE) which, taken together, look rather implausible and then largely seem to have been removed by another editor (whose editing patterns seem to have had some interesting correlations with those of the creator of the article) over a period of a few weeks following the closure of the AfD. None of this looks like a particularly solid case for deletion of the article - but it does not look like any kind of case for keeping it without decent proof of notability. PWilkinson (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2018 (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.