Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Cherbi


 * 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 delete.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Peter Cherbi
Note: I am relisting this AfD. The page and this AfD were both blanked by the original author, and was brought to my attention when the blank page was tagged for a speedy delete. No vote. --Deathphoenix 02:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Scottish advocate who doesn't seem to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. A Google search for "Peter Cherbi" yields less than one page of results. I'm vaguely suspicious that WP:VAIN might also be in play. Tom Lillis 16:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing there now, but the erased page was almost certainly WP:VAIN. Eusebeus 17:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Apparently, I am now part of some nature of conspiracy. Goody.  Tom Lillis 18:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My response to this :

I am not the person you name but I did the articles based on extensive coverage he receives in the Scottish printed press & television, not just "on a bit of protest coverage by the BBC". Winning Parliamentary debates which turn into successful legislation & changes in regulatory rules, helping users of a required service - that of a solicitor is on the whole, more than 'a bit of a protest'.

You can delete the articles if you like. It is your privilege to do so.

For the avoidance of doubt, in the short statement left in the blanked article, there was no one identified by name who "demanded " that the article be removed.

i note the matter & issues arising. Based on this, I am no longer interested in wikipedia.

As far as Google searches go, Life in Scotland doesn't yet hang on their every reference. I note the reference to WP:VAIN. There's plenty of that around anyway so it will do no good to add to it then. Please therefore delete the articles forthwith.

So, Tomlillis, two days on, the article has not been deleted, contrary to my request to do so, but one of my articles certainly has. What gives ? Since I am happy for the articles to be deleted, along with my userid, quoting Wikipedia's policy on such matters as expressed in the terms of deletion, I don't see why the article should be kept around longer, unless it's just to get some more knives stuck into it.
 * &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by Lawscottie (talk &bull; contribs)
 * Lawscottie, as a matter of proceedure, articles nominated for deletion and appearing here must remain for a minimum of five days to promote discussion. After five days, an administrator will consider the discussion and decide to either delete or retain the article. There's nothing that can be done to speed it up. Saberwyn - 05:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions.   -- Rob 10:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Okay, I believe I've managed to sort this out... this is an individual Scottish activist who runs a website. He doesn't seem to have influence on anything notable. Ashibaka tock 19:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Daveb 15:26, 1 January 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.