Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Bozier (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) 22:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Luke Bozier
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are two fundamentally important reasons why this article should be deleted.

Firstly, as Paul MacDermott said in the previous AFD, anything that could be said about him can easily go in the menshn section of the article on Louise Mensch. He was never a Member of Parliament, Member of European Parliament, or even a local councillor. Any notability drawn from him has come because of his defection as a party functionary, and not him himself as a notable subject. Coverage regarding his departure from Menshn and relating to Menshn in general can simply be mentioned in the aforementioned section.

The second aspect, and arguably the more pressing one, is that - for reasons beyond my comprehension - this article was created in complete violation of WP:BLP policy, right off the back of the subject's arrest for the alleged possession of indecent images of children. Creating an article on an individual undergoing investigation for a serious criminal offence is astonishingly misguided and completely unacceptable. To conclude, I recommend in the strongest possible terms regarding WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERP that salvageable content be merged to the place it is already relevant, and the entry itself be deleted. WilliamH (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC) WilliamH (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep With regards to BLP concerns the article states the factually accurate statements that a) Mr Bozier has been arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images and b) Mr Bozier denies these charges. A court of law will decide whether or not he is innocent or guilty. If I added libelous content to the article Luke Bozier could of course sue me but all I can see a the moment is a factually accurate account of events which have generated headlines in several newspapers... Francium12 (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep He's had coverage over his work as a political adviser, e.g., and his involvement in Menshn, as well as for his arrest, so I don't think WP:BLP1E or WP:PERP apply. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 11:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theopolisme   ( talk )  22:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Why has this been relisted for a third time rather than closed? It's customary to provide a reason. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - A person of no significance whatsoever. HornetMike (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- He has been no more than a minor party functionary, then set up some political organisation with a lady who has resigned as an MP (who then sakced him). Summary NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no clear claim to notability in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. MRSC (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2013 (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.