Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Farrar


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike Farrar

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

This article was prodded in January 2008, and the prod was removed after the article was improved. I think the prod was quite proper and the article should be deleted. A senior public servant should not be automatically notable because of their position or the ordinary things done in their job. Some might be, but only if they are the subject of independent coverage. There is no independent coverage of this guy apart from in publications that solely deal with the NHS. In my view, this guy is a dime-a-dozen senior, but not top-level, bureaucrat Mkativerata (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – Found numerous independent – creditable – 3rd party references concerning the individual, as shown here  I’ll add more to the article over the next day or two.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 15:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I've looked over those Google News hits. Not a single one of them is - as the GNG requires - about the subject; they all either include quotes by him or are omnibus articles about civil service appointments, himself included.  He certainly fails WP:POLITICIAN.   RGTraynor  16:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - However, he does meet the criteria under professionals in that he “…The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.” which the GHITS show. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 16:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:CREATIVE does not apply to him: he is not a scientist, academic, economist, professor, author, editor, journalist, filmmaker, photographers, artist, architect, engineer or other creative professionals. He is a bureaucrat. Bureaucrats implement policy and often get in the news for doing so. But that doesn't make them notable. If the "important figure" and "widely cited by peers" test was to apply to bureaucrats, wikipedia would become a public service directory for medium to upper level mandarins. --Mkativerata (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – I do not believe we differentiate between individuals, with regards to their position in life, when applying, as you stated “important figures and “widely cited by peers”. Either you are or you are not.  If you meet the criteria, no matter what mantle we place on the individual, you meet the requirements.  Labeling or pigeon-holing a person into this category or that, should not hold muster with regards to inclusion.  Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 19:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. We do differentiate people: WP:CREATIVE only applies to creative professionals. WP:ATHLETE only applies to athletes.  Bureaucrats fit into neither and should be judged according to WP:BIO and WP:GNG, neither of which are met by this guy because he's not the subject of any independent sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: You mean you infer he's regarded as an important figure in his field; do you have any reliable sources saying so? He's certainly been repeatedly cited in the media, but do you have any reliable sources from his peers citing him?  He still wouldn't pass the prof test even if it applied to him, which of course it does not.    RGTraynor  00:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep We have articles on hundreds of minor pop stars and footballers who emerge into the limelight and soon disappear again, but someone who's actions and decisions over many years in senior positions, controlling budgets of millions of pounds, affect millions of peoples lives and has the ear of senior politicians are not considered worthy. The nature of the role of civil servants means they are supposed to shun personal limelight, however I believe there are enough citations to reliable sources to illustrate his notability and significance in line with many of the individuals in Category:British civil servants.&mdash; Rod talk 09:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added several citations to the article including three from independent news sources that mention details about the subject rather than quotes from him. Road Wizard (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely notable having served on several major UK public bodies. --Simple Bob (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This nomination is a clear example of wikilawyering overcoming common sense. Just because we don't have a notability guideline for bureaucrats on the lines of WP:PORNSTAR it doesn't mean that we have to delete articles about obviously notable bureaucrats. This guy was in charge of primary care in the NHS, i.e. he ran the service that 99% of the population of England use when they get sick (for those outside the UK, private primary care is almost non-existent here). How on earth can that not be considered to confer notability? I've also fleshed out the article a bit to demonatrate that the subject has not followed a typical career path for a senior civil servant. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2009 (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.