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. Kevin (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rickett[edit]

Chris Rickett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Autobiographical Lawrence Ryan (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment no recommendation at this time but, being an autobigraphy is not a reason to delete an article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I listed this article for deletion for a number of reasons that stem from it being an autobiography that are listed as issues on the article's page. These include:

1. Peacock Terms: Since the author is the subject of the wiki, they propped up any successes that they may have (debatable) achieved.

2. The neutrality is disputed because it is autobiographical. The author only represents the positive accomplishments he felt that he made, while ignoring all of the negatives that he was involved in at the same time. He was a politician, and each and every politician overlooks all of the negative acts they committed in favor of the positive acts.

3. His notability is in question. He served one 3-year term as a municipal city councillor. Is this sufficient to be notable and included in an encyclopedia? If so, then there ought to be millions of pages on wikipedia for all of the insignificant city councillors that ever served.

4. It is certainly a biased viewpoint because the subject of the the wiki was the author himself. Lawrence Ryan (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Having Peacock terms is a reason to edit an article not delete it. Questionable neutrality is also a reason to edit an article, not delete it.
• Delete - I can not find any indication that he is notable in general terms or as a politician ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Location (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2009 (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.