Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Hunter-Clarke (3rd 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 Procedural keep. Way too soon after the prev. AfD. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric  02:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Robin Hunter-Clarke
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination on behalf of User:Paulharding150, per their request at WT:AFD. The rationale they posted is included verbatim below. Relevant criteria include WP:NPOLITICIAN, though the subject's involvement in the recent EU Referendum doesn't exactly fit the usual categories of notability for politicians. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to nominate this as an AFD: Robin Hunter-Clarke. I fail to see what point it serves, I have removed a lot of waffle/gossip, he may have held a senior role in the leave campaign, but that was only for a few months and that isn't the sort of thing anyone is going to look up. He's currently an assistant for an opposition Assembly Member and a UKIP election candidate - does that merit a page here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulharding150 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   21:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   21:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   21:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep A well-attended AfD on this politician was closed as Keep by a highly regarded administrator less than 3 months ago and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Hunter-Clark is a member of a controversial political party, which makes this rush to overturn that AfD suspect. (I weighed in at the AfD and sourced article during the AfD; I do that sort of WP:HEYMANN upgrade regularly)  But what truly ought to have raised red flags is that the request was made by an editor who admits to having just removed a large amount of material from the article. User:Ultraexactzz, I hope you will reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily disagree, and would not object to a procedural close. I completed the steps here per WP:AGF at the nominator's request, when their malformed AFD tag popped at WP:BADAFD. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I did say I'd removed 'a lot' if you look at what I actually removed it was around 2% of the article - which was unsuited to Wikipedia.I wold ask you to reconsider given that no one is going to look this person up - mainly because he is not linked from any pages other than the seats he has stood in - he is not even linked from the Vote Leave article. Paulharding150 (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep per E.M.Gregory. Lepricavark (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep: Too soon after Articles for deletion/Robin Hunter-Clarke (2nd nomination). --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep. I'm certainly not seeing genuinely compelling evidence of notability, and would most likely have voted to delete if I'd participated in the February discussion at all — but what I'm not seeing presented here is any new evidence of non-notability that wasn't already taken into account in February. I don't always agree with where consensus lands either, but my responsibility as a Wikipedian is to abide by consensus whether I agree with it or not, and to present a much more thoroughly reasoned case for reconsideration if I feel strongly enough to shoot for a consensus can change test (which I have to admit that I don't here.) So if there were a compelling new reason to reopen this just three months after a clear keep, then I'd be willing to hear it out — but if we're just going to rehash the same arguments as last time with nothing new being brought to the table, then we should wait for at least three more months before trying. Bearcat (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2017 (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.