Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Hilton

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. Although this person is only WP:BLP1E, the number keep votes and the reasons behind them overtook the nomination statement and the article was kept. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (state the obvious (or not)) 18:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC) I am voiding this NAC. The close does not follow policy and in acknowledging that BLP1E applies the closer should have called delete, which he hasn't. In reclosing, I see that there is no real argument against BLP1E applying. The guiness world record is not in itsself grounds for separate notability and I have discarded that argument. Beyond that, I'm not really seeing a keep argument that goes beyond general notability and the quality of the vast majority of the arguments leaves a lot to be desired from a policy point of view. Since no credible rename or merge target has appeared I can really only see one outcome here - which is that this is a figure notable for one event only and that this event is not so transcendent to overcome BLP1E. Since this policy overcomes the GNG, the outcome should have been and is Delete per BLP1E Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Hilton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E - person only notable for one event. This is about a British politician who was deselected as a candidate before the 2005 election due to controversial comments he made about Catholicism. Being a candidate itself is not notable, and I don't think anything in the rest of his biography gives him a claim to notability. The only significant coverage of him I could find relates to the Catholic controversy. This article could be renamed to 2005 Conservative party Catholic controversy or something similar, but I'm not convinced it's even notable enough for that, given the relatively brief period of coverage. This seems to have been a transient controversy with few lasting consequences for anyone other than Mr. Hilton himself. Robofish (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the controversy having received extremely high profile news coverage for months, his Guinness World Record suggests notability. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree, seems to me he would have notability. JDOG555 (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems at least somewhat notable, especialy considering the election controversy and the world record. However, as a BLP I think this article could be more balanced, with additional info about the world record, and perhaps personal life. As is it reads more like a newspaper story, and (I would think) does not adequately sum up his life. Millermk90 (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This man is notable for one thing only, that he was at the centre of a political controversy. I agree that consideration should be given to renaming the article so it's about the controversy rather than the man, but actually the controversy was in major part of his own making, so I would lean on the side of putting it under the man as that is where people are most likely to look for information. Hoping to be helpful here, I have edited the article so that the essentials about the controversy are retained, but removed the Guinness reference, and the reference to subsequent failed local authority candidature, which are irrelevant. There were elements in this article which hint at vanity, and these have been removed or toned down. asnac (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as BLP in its revised form. Clearly there are people genuinely notable for one thing alone (Guy Fawkes) and innumerable people who have become notable on the back of a single incident that gained media attention. But in general Wikipedia policy is clear that that BLPs should be biographical in tone and give so far as possible a balanced picture within the constraints of privacy. Either we should construct an article as Millermk90 suggests, or rename and recast as Robofish suggests. Like the nominator, I'm not convinced of general notability but I would reconsider if a biography reflected a more general notability essentially, I suspect, as a campaigner on the political relationship between Britain and Europe. --AJHingston (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Alessandra Napolitano.--Britannicus (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable per WP:GNG. BLP1E is an argument for merger into some article about the one event. But what is that? Warden (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one-trick pony (almost, along with reciting Shakespeare...) perhaps, but he's notable nonetheless. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- We do not normally keep failed parliamentary candidates. I have forgotten the controversy, but the article might be remodeled as an article on the 2005 election in Slough or on the controversy. I doubt that holding a Guiness Record makes him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems he's no longer politically active, and no evidence of further writing on political themes. The 2005 episode only registered as a minor blip at the time, and I doubt there are many who remember it - still less consider it significant - now. Holding a Guinness Record hardly makes a person notable in the Wiki sense. 13afuse (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:POLITICIAN says of failed candidates, 'such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".' By the way, Wikipedia:Notability (events) says "If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead," which suggests keep and rename as Adrian Hilton parliamentary candidacy. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He's categorised as an 'English Blogger' and he's notable as well for that. I saw him on The Alan Titchmarsh Show a while ago with Kelvin MacKenzie. He also writes for The Spectator. I agree with Millermk90 - needs more balance Gmunder (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He appears to be a candidate who failed to be elected; I believe there is precedent to indicate that such people don't meet the notability guidelines if the only thing they are known for is having run for office, but failed to be elected.--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This BLP is not more than 1E, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah he is notable. IJA (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.