Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Boatman


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Peter Boatman

 * Delete as biography of non-notable person. I did not speedy it as some claim of notability has been made, but is not substantiated by any evidence. Google searches confirmed my suspicion. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete No apparent notability. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep on the basis that his company is the sole distributor of the Taser in Britain, and it is a controversial weapon. He has been the subject of some articles and interviews on the topic of non-lethal weaponry. He may also be somewhat controversial as he held a 50% stake in the company while still serving as a police officer. &mdash; RJH 16:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the company is notable, the article should be on the company itself. Note that he is just a Director of Operations. When there isn't an article on the company, should there be an article on its Director(Sales). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable as a figure in an ongoing public controversy in the UK. Interesting.  Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please elaborate the controversy you are talking about so that we can take a better(informed) decision. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A primer - (article from the Times). Guy's a real slimebag, and the Taser thing is an emerging issue everywhere as a new form or arbitrary and uncontrolled police power over civilians.  Notable issue, notable controversy, notable player in controversy.  Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bobby. JoshuaZ 04:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, of marginal notability. I added a badly needed source to the article. In my opinion voting To my mind, opining keep for an article that lacks any verifiable sources is not good practice. Sliggy 10:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Afd is not a vote. -Colin Kimbrell 14:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You are of course quite right, and I'm sorry for my sloppy English. Sliggy 15:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete No Google news hits, a little over 50 non-Wikipedia regular Google hits.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:10, 22 March 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.