Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Middleton


 * 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. WjBscribe 15:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Joe Middleton

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Completing a nom. Original reason for deletion in the talk page of the article. Tizio 10:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 
 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 23:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete unless there are some newspaper references to some part of his political career. DGG 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Firm Keep: A short Goggle search revels Joe Middleton is currently an important figure in the Scottish Independence  Movement.  He is mentioned in articles from the BBC and the Sunday Herald.  He also appears in the  Scottish Left Review and other left of center publications. An article by him was in the Scotsman. This individual has been featured in “multiple credible news media” pieces and no doubt has relatively “wide name recognition” in Scotland.  (I myself live in the States, and thus, have never heard of him.) Fixer1234 03:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Possibly meets the notability threshold, but without references (which I don't doubt exist) I can't support it. Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please see my post for a list of sources including an article from BBC.com. Fixer1234 08:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article itself has no references. That is my critique, not that they might exist elswehere.Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: If the article simply needs references to stay, then those posted on this page should suffice. They establish a number of biographical details.  The text of the article, granted, should be cut to what we have citations for and the ref.  should be added, but that can be taken care of by the normal editing process.  Hence, the result of the AfD should be keep. Fixer1234 20:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete some of the organisations are notable - he can be mentioned where appropriate on their articles. He himself is not.-Docg 10:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm with Doc Glasgow. He's mentioned trivially, just in passing, in the links mentioned. There's nothing there to build a biography from, so we'd be left at the mercy of spin doctors. Not good for BLP articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think non UK readers might think the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement is more impressive than it is; in reality it's a splinter-from-a-splinter "People's Front of Judea"-style micro-party. Independence First is a tiny pressure group with no links at all to the actual Scottish National Party. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  16:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: Point taken. However, “Obscure content isn't harmful”, as per Wikipedia guidelines.  Further, even if the group is small, it is active and in the news.  It is conceivable that people would hear about the group and be interested in learning more.  Personally, Wikipedia is often my first stop for quick info.  Since Middleton's name often appears in junction with the name of the group, there's a good chance he might be looked up as well. Fixer1234 02:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep + Comment - A couple of facts need to be set straight about the above comment - the SRSM is not a "splinter group", since it did not split off anything, certainly not off the SNP. It is also not a party, and has not been for a number of years. It is also wrong to state that Independence First has "no links to the actual Scottish National Party", since a) it has a large percentage of SNP folk in it, including Bill Wilson, and SNP politicians have voiced support for their marches, and b) it is a non-/trans-party group as I understand it - so to claim it is part of the SNP or in competition with it, is to completely misunderstand it. In fact, both the SRSM, and Independence First are non-partisan groups. The difference is that the SNP proscribed the SRSM, but has reasonable relations with Independence First. --MacRusgail 17:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC) p.s. I think I should add, that Joe Middleton is a published writer too. He contributed to the book, The Scottish Road to Socialism (ed. Gregor Gall, 2007 - which I finished reading a week or two back), and has had articles published in the Edinburgh Evening News (subscriber site, but article may be readable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacRusgail (talk • contribs)
 * No one is suggesting that these organisation shouldn't have articles or that this guy can't be mentioned on them.--Docg 18:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I say give people a little more time to expand on this article, then let us decide if it's notable. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has been here for almost 18 months, how much longer do you suggest? If new factors emerge, or new information is found, it can be undeleted later.--Docg 18:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply- I refuse to pick a time frame, however, I think that now that the deletion tag has been placed on the article there will be more of a drive (hopefully) to keep this one alive. A simple Google search of " "Joe Middleton" Scotland " turns up numerous hits, I'm hopeful some of our Scottish comrades will pick up on the hint that this one may go if no work is put into it. I just hate to see political articles go...- HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 22:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Press officer of organisation not notable enough for article. Article in press and chapter in book not sufficent to establish notability. Davewild 18:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a terribly basic premise:  what elements of WP:BIO do the Keep supporters believe he fulfills, and what sources do they present to support any such assertion?  So far I'm seeing neither.    RGTraynor  19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, this article must be given more time to establish notability, as the subject seems fairly notable based of Google searches. Later, if the article fails to establish notability, I will whole-heartedly give support for deletion. --queso man 20:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article is over a year old now. Why must it be given more time, exactly?    RGTraynor  20:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: If anything, I think that the fact that it has been here for as long as it has weakens the argument for deletion, it's been here for eighteen months and hasn't bothered anyone until now. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 03:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per notability issues cited above. If there are relevant articles where this man should be included, appropriate information should be included on them. But I support deleting this one, nonetheless. Lemonsawdust 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I think the articles that have been added to our discussion, if these articles are added appropriately to the article, are enough to substantiate claims of notability. My thought now is keep and clean. Lemonsawdust 04:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It either does or does not meet WP:NOTE. At present he does not.  Jody B   00:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Your statement implies that it must meet WP:Note to stay on wikipedia. This is not the case.  Quote: "This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability."Fixer1234 01:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: While it doesn't necessarily need to meet WP:NOTE, it's generally accepted that articles should. The guidelines are, of course, "guidelines" in that they aren't policy, but they still represent more than suggestions. As the guideline itself says, only the "occasional exception" should be made. So, if you see a reason why an exception should be made for this article, it would be helpful to the discussion to hear it. Lemonsawdust 02:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * More links: to an article in the | Free Scot and a different article in The Scotsman.  Also here and here.  Also, here is a link to the book, Is There a Scottish Road to Socialism? mentioned above. Fixer1234 03:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * These don't help. The mainstream media you provide concern the organisations, not the individual directly. The first like isn't an 'independent' (sic) source. These would give strength to mentioning him on articles on the organisations - they are not biographic by a mile--Docg 08:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: It strikes me that if you are able to support the article Alan McDonald (moderator) (you have contributed to it, in fact), you should have no problem supporting this one. There do not appear to be any “independent” sources cited to support Mr. McDonald's biography. Neither are there links to media articles that establish his “importance”. --  As I've said, I'm from the States and I'm not familiar with Middleton or the Alan McDonald.  However, I support the presence of their bios on Wikipedia because they are active leader-members of important organizations/movements.  While they would not be included in a regular encyclopedia, the power of Wikipedia is that it is not paper.  It can include information on people and groups that are notable with-in specific regions or communities (and by “community” here I do not mean a physical area, but a group of people with similar interests, as in the Gay community, etc).  Fixer1234 02:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hear hear! - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 02:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if they are active leader-members of important organizations/movements, how will the article meet Neutral point of view, Verifiability, What Wikipedia is not, No original research, and Biographies of living persons if there are no WP:RS from which to take the information for the Wikipedia article? -- Jreferee 21:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if they are active leader-members of important organizations/movements, how will the article meet Neutral point of view, Verifiability, What Wikipedia is not, No original research, and Biographies of living persons if there are no WP:RS from which to take the information for the Wikipedia article? -- Jreferee 21:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as there is no non-trivial coverage. Being quoted at a rally is not 'coverage.'--killing sparrows 16:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There are many (40+) letters to the editor written by Joe Middleton, which may have lead to his article  Why we need independence as soon as possible, Herald (Glasgow, Scotland) April 26, 2005, by Joe Middleton. Joe occasionally is quoted as the media officer for Independence First. However, the only WP:RS I found about Joe that is independent of Joe is News of the World, January 30, 2005, Section: Home news, page 2, SNP Nazi bust-up. There is a Joe Middleton who was president of Levi Strauss Europe, but the two are unrelated.  In short, there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article about the topic.  Does not meet WP:N. Joe needs to get newspapers to start writing about Joe Middleton if he expects to have an article on Wikipedia. -- Jreferee 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * del nn insufficient coverage for a politician. Mukadderat 21:49, 24 April 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.