Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bickley (politician) (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. There appears to be a rough consensus that the subject lacks sufficient in depth coverage about himself as opposed to passing references to him, to pass WP:ANYBIO. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

John Bickley (politician)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As the intro suggests, this person has never been elected to a national parliament and is a 'perennial by-election candidate'. As such he fails WP:POLITICIAN notability criteria. In fact most of this article is about complaints by the UK Independence Party about alleged voting fraud. The long unsourced quote ending the article sounds unnecessary and quite self promotional. Considering this article has already been deleted at AfD in 2014, there appears to be little (other than routine election coverage) that has happened to improve Bickley's chances of meeting WP:GNG criteria. Sionk (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 02:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 02:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 02:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 02:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable defeated candidate for office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep He is UKIP treasurer and has been the UKIP spokesman on immigration for the last year. He is frequently quoted in the national media in connection with these roles. Immigration has been a top political issue in the UK for a long time and will remain so especially while Brexit negotiations are ongoing. Immigration is central to UKIP's policies. His roles make him one of the top ten key people in UKIP, a party that remains an opposition force in British politics. Although he has not been successful in elections we know that UKIP has had an influence in British politics well beyond what would be expected from their standing in elections and that influence continues. He therefore meets general notability guidelines WP:GNG. The article could benefit from some improvements including references to news articles related to his roles, however the sources can easily be found and their existence is enough to establish notability even if they are not currently linked in the article. The article was previously deleted in 2014 and must have been restored because of increased notability from the roles he assumed more recently. Weburbia (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I checked all 14 refs (unfortunately I have nothing better to do) - they are all trivial mentions about a failed candidacy, 404's or focus on his party and don't mention him at all. Szzuk (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Add. This article has been previously deleted at AFD, it probably evaded G7 this time because it was recreated with 11 refs, but the last AFD was pretty conclusive. Szzuk (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The previous AfD was three years ago so it is of no relevance now. I think I would have agreed with the deletion at that time but his notability increased with appointments since then. The article was recreated in December 2016 when he became UKIP's immigration spokesman. This is reflected in press articles over the last 12 months in which he features. Furthermore, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." WP:NEXIST and "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." WP:ARTN. Please do a search for new sources before making criticisms based on the poor quality of the article or the former AfD whose conclusions are now obsolete. Weburbia (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability requires verifiable evidence WP:NRV. This AFD is an opportunity for editors to locate new sources or highlight existing sources that verify notability - if that does not happen the article will be deleted. Szzuk (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This book, published by the Oxford University Press, has quite a bit of coverage of Bickley. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are some examples, but anyone can search the Google news archive and judge for themselves. There are plenty of references. Frankly I don't know why this is even up for debate. People may not like it but being UKIP immigration spokesman is clearly a notable political office.
 * Diane Abbott lashes out at Ukip politician during furious row over tackling extremism - Express
 * General election: UKIP want 'one in, one out' migration - BBC
 * Conservatives stand by migration target 'aim' - BBC
 * Fury after plans for all EU migrants to be able to come to Britain after Brexit as long as they have a job - The Sun
 * Just 11% of Britons say Govt doing good job on Brexit - Sky Data poll - Sky News
 * Weburbia (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG needs coverage about the subject, not the subject saying things about something else (e.g. UKIP's immigration policy). If Bickley hasn't had significant coverage about him, he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 12:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of material that is "more than a trivial mention" in reliable sources as required for WP:GNG. When a politician is quoted for example that is saying something about him. Weburbia (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite, when someone says something about immigration they're saying something about immigration, not themselves. If there's plenty of coverage about Bickley, rather than UKIP immigration policy, maybe you'd care to share it. Sionk (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree fundamentally with your interpretation. A person is notable as a politician because of what they say and do in politics, not because of personal details about themselves. Being a spokesman for immigration means that he is leading the process of setting immigration policy for the party. He is not just reading out what others think. Having said that, there are plenty of news articles mentioning him in relation to topics other than immigration. It is not my responsibility to search and list them all for other people. My point is just that the article is not the only place to look for the answers. Weburbia (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to afford people the opportunity to evaluate 's sources
 * Delete, but be open to inclusion later on. Right now there is not enough reliable and in-depth coverage. But given the forward momentum of right-wing populism in Europe, it would be foolish not to consider his inclusion later.Knox490 (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is UKIP's treasurer. UKIP spokesman on immigration for the last year. Frequently quoted in the national media relating to a top political issue, namely immigration.desmay (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I found additional coverage about him generating outrage by retweeting a racist cartoon, and for a business failure. [];[];[] [] With the five elections he participated in, and his role as UKIP spokeperson, he just barely passes WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  00:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep He may not pass, WP:NPOL for failing to win election but he does pass WP:GNG for that repetitive failure. (irony?). Actually serial failure often brings fames and notability more than single winning (which will give automatic WP:NPOL). His serial failure will now make him known to everybody concerned with the politics and any of his political move again will surely attract press coverage. In addition the sources by Timtempleton above contain substantial content about the subject and many more are in the article by respected papers The Guardian, Economist, Independent and their like. The only way I can justify supporting deletion is if failure to win election is automatic disqualified for article, and that cannot be possible as long as WP:GNG exists. –Ammarpad (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Articles provided to "demonstrate notability" are really about UKIP or UK immigration policy or Brexit; Bickley is mentioned tangentially, the articles aren't about him, just statements he's making on behalf of UKIP (and therefore about UKIP. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I'm not proposing merge, but to the extent a future editor feels it's necessary to mention him by name on pages for any of those groups/events, they can still do that on those pages without him needing a full WP:BLP. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- an unremarkable local politician; does not meet WP:NPOL. Coverage is routine for this level of position. Not encyclopedically relevant. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: "He is UKIP treasurer and has been the UKIP spokesman on immigration for the last year.", failing WP:NPOL. I looked at the references: His only claim to fame is as a "local politician". Articles on "Oldham West", "fraud claims", "postal vote complaints" or any article or source referencing something within the capacity of his position, especially with trivial or passing mention, no not advance notability. Subjects lacks reliable, indepenant, and in-depth coverage. By-the-way: There is no automatic inherited notability on Wikipedia. All articles on Wikipedia must follow the File Pillars. Otr500 (talk) 03:39, 17 January 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.