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 delete. Can be restored if somebody really wants to merge anything, but I see nothing of interest or importance that is not already in Cannabis Law Reform.  Sandstein  07:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Reynolds (politician)[edit]

Peter Reynolds (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This man has not been "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." His sole claim to fame is that he was the leader of a party that has now removed him for attacking medicinal cannabis users and threatening members of the public. [I should disclose that I was one of them, but I still feel that objectively Peter Reynolds is not notable] Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 20:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to CLEAR campaign. The party probably passes as notable (although the article needs some serious re-writing to stop being a reprint of their website), so as leader or former leader he had a place there, but no sign from GNews that he qualifies as notable in his own right. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — The subject is not given in-depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources (WP:GNG), nor does he readily pass WP:POLITICIAN as a former head of a minor political party. As to merging, only the CLEAR article and a disambig currently link here. There doesn't seem to be any need for a redirect. Perhaps just a mention with the refs in this article to support. JFHJr (㊟) 01:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete. I don't think it's even entirely, erm, obvious, that CLEAR passes GNG. If there's anything worth passing over from this article to that, it should be done. But I don't get the impression that we are handling any information that the world really needs to know in this case. FormerIP (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is a lot of information online, in articles that often look well-researched if not always very ... conservative. The problem is, who knows what is and is not a reliable, impartial source for detailed information about the UK cannabis legalization movement? As I read through the Google hits I don't know who I can really cite. This uncertainty is a problem, not just for this article, but for the cannabis legalization movement in general. It would be very helpful if people knowledgeable in this arena can come up with a go-to list of high quality sources for this and other related articles. Wnt (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2012 (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.