Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Housden


 * 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 03:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter Housden
Another senior civil servant. As we've seen here at AfD, civil servants are non-notable enough to have their own page. -Royalguard11Talk 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator. -Royalguard11Talk 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for failure to meet WP:BIO. Rout and trounce all value destroyers! Eddie.willers 03:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom Bwithh 03:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't find anything particular about civil servants in WP:BIO, exactly what part does it fail? Catchpole 15:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. If I felt like reading resumes, I would post a newspaper ad, not edit Wikipedia. α Chimp   laudare  04:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Permanent Secretaries are the highest civil servant in each UK Government department so this guy is the equivalent of the political Secretary of State Ruth Kelly. And we certainly will have an entry for his boss, Gus O'Donnell, and entries for other civil servants of a similar level. Catchpole 08:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He's not the equivalent or equal of a British Secretary of State. He's an unelected subordinate who is supposed to advise the minister and manage part of the civil service. The minister makes policy decisions (in combination with No.10 policy unit)and advises the prime minister Bwithh 12:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And ministers come and go, whilst the permanent secretaries remain. Maybe you should become familiar with Yes, Minister. Catchpole 14:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Minister is not an accurate or useful account of how the UK government works. The Thick of It comes across as more authentic, but again should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Bwithh 05:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Margaret Thatcher, on Yes, Minister: "its closely observed portrayal of what goes on in the corridors of power has brought me hours of pure joy" . Catchpole 06:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Elected politicians are notable, non-elected appointed civil servants are not unless they've been involved in a big scandal or something. -Royalguard11Talk 00:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess what this comes down to is your opinion on what makes someone notable. My view is that running a large government department bestows a large enough amount of notability to be worthy of an entry here. The requirement for civil servants to practice political neutrality does not negate their notability, again in my view. Catchpole 06:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. A senior civil servant who did anything notable would implicitly be in deep trouble. -- GWO
 * Keep per Catchpole.--Nydas 19:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Permanent secretaries are highly notable within the British system of government. They have a strong influence on government decisions. Any other Permanent Secretaries who were deleted should be reconsidered. Capitalistroadster 04:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please permanent secretaries like this are notable Yuckfoo 23:36, 31 July 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.