Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julien Foster


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Julien Foster
This article I feel is non-notable. Julien Foster has achieved nothing more than standing as a candidate in a general election and being a lawyer. Both of these don't really warrant him a page. In additon, the page was created by Julien Foster himself, which does suggest it is merely a vainity page. The last line of the article reads "He is a grandson of Roberto Weiss, a great great nephew of Sir Horace Hector Hearne and a great great nephew of Sadie Bonnell"; as well as this being fairly irrelevant, Julien Foster has created two of these pages himself, and this again makes me think it is a vainity page. If he ever becomes an MP then the page of course should be remade, but I think at the moment he's not notable. Berks105 21:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable enough because of his political activity and apart from the family references (that should be removed if continuing to be unsourced if the article survives its afd) everything is well sourced, SqueakBox 22:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Since this isn't a vote, and rationales are important, that won't count against editors who actually give rationales for deletion. Uncle G 00:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What utter rubbish! You have no right to dismiss the views of other editors merely because you disagree with them and my viewpoint is equal to yours, of course, see WP:AGF, SqueakBox 18:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Uncle G means it would be helpful it you said why you think the article should be kept. --Berks105 18:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You didn't give a view. You just wrote "Keep", and that was it.  You gave no rationale at all.  Rationales are important, and bare votes cannot outweigh arguments based upon policies.  You've given a rationale now, but it is a fallacious one.  You assert that the article is "well sourced".  But it isn't actually sourced at all.  See what I already wrote at length on the purported sources.  It seems unlikely that anyone who has actually read the purported sources would come to the conclusion that this article was "well sourced". Uncle G 12:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article cites as references what the article describes as "profiles" of this person. They are not, in fact, any such things.  The purported "profile" at The Guardian comprises exactly 1 sentence: "Not currently an MP".  The purported "profile" at The Times is in fact the page with the election results for a U.K. parliamentary constituency, and contains exactly the same amount of information about M. Foster as Leyton and Wanstead does: 1 line in a table giving polling results.  The other three cited references are not even remotely about the subject and contain no biographical information whatsoever.  (One is a name check in a debate, one is a quotation, and one is a dumped electronic mail message.) The article is an autobiography, written by .  The references aren't references at all, and it has clearly been constructed from M. Foster's own firsthand knowledge of xyrself.  Searching, the only biographies of this person that I can find are other autobiographies, also supplied directly from the subject, that are word-for-word identical to this one. When it comes to the Criteria for inclusion of biographies, the subject does not satisfy any of them anyway.  The subject is a barrister, and an election candidate who didn't win.  The appearances on radio programmes are clearly on the level of phone-in interviews.  Notability is not inheritable, especially from one's grandfather or great-great uncle, and the notability by association is the only thing that the autobiographies have going as even claims of notability.  Not that we can actually trust that this person is in fact related to whom xe claims to be related. And that is the crux of the problem.  There is nothing from which to verify the content of this article, including the claims of being a distant relative of notable people, except for other word-for-word identical autobiographies that the subject has had published elsewhere, in addition to submitting to Wikipedia.  (The other autobiographies don't even mention the distant relatives, moreover.)  Autobiography explains the problems with that.  The subject is non-notable, and nothing in the article is verifiable except for the information that we already have in Leyton and Wanstead.  That row in a table, in that article, is exactly how much coverage of this person that Wikipedia should have.  Delete. Uncle G 00:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uncle G insofar as it is unverifiable in reliable sources. Notability should not be used as a ground for deletion when adequate, independent grounds exist that are based entirely on Wikipedia policy. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 02:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources isn't a policy, whereas Criteria for inclusion of biographies is a simple elaboration of the official policies that Wikipedia is not a genealogical database nor a telephone book, from What Wikipedia is not. Uncle G 07:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is specifically noted in Wikipeida's content policies (as it should be). WP:NOT stands alone as policy and does not imply detailed notability criteria. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 14:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it does, and at several points in its history, including for quite a while throughout 2004, it has more or less stated the primary notability criterion outright in the section on Wikipedia not being a genealogical or biographical dictionary. Uncle G
 * The primary notability criterion is distinct from detailed notability criteria, which I believe you call "secondary notability criteria". Also, it's not in WP:NOT now.  Though I have not addressed this particular issue, obviously, we disagree on this matter. ;) &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 13:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the applicable policies and guidelines cited above. Eluchil404 08:36, 11 October 2006 (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.