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 merge to Nick Griffin. no information that's notable need be lost. All notability relates to the son. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN; those sources available deal either with his son (irrelevant) or his sacking (WP:BLP1E). Ironholds (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm in agreement that these sources do not establish sufficient notability to warrant a standalone article. It would be much better to merge existing relevant content into the article on Nick Griffin if necessary. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I would have to agree. His political life seems to have consisted of being a counciler and father of Nick Griffin there are a lot of ex-councilers in the UK. Merge with the Nick Griffin page.Slatersteven (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 'weak keep' We do seem to have articles about other relatives of party leaders e.g. Elspeth Campbell who, judging by her article, has done less to get herself in the public eye than Edgar Griffin. It would be good to clarify what criteria we should use for relatives of politicians in general. Looking at [1] and [2] the Griffins do use Edgar's history as a political tool. So he isn't a totally private individual, nor am I convinced that WP:BLP1E does apply.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC) (Emeraude's arguments re rarity of expulsions from tory party etc. convince me that I should remove weak. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep. WP:BLP1E states "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." The low profile requirement certainly fails in this case as we have sources from 2001 for the expulsion, a follow-up story in 2002 and further interest in 2009 caused by claims made by his son. It also doesn't matter if he fails WP:POLITICIAN as he passes the Basic criteria at the top of that page "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Within the sources is at least one interview by a reliable, independent source; that cannot be considered trivial as it is specifically about him and the source is valid. Multiple reliable sources are also in place to support the article. Road Wizard (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So essentially, your argument that he is not going to remain a low-profile individual is because of crap his family is doing. Please explain how this article is, for example, different from Suri Cruise. Ironholds (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Why try to predict the future and say "is he going to continue to be a low profile individual?" The evidence is that he has been at the attention of the media for two separate issues 8 years apart and he was considered interesting enough to have a follow up article in between the two periods. That means he passes the 1E test as someone known for two separate issues and also someone who has not managed to keep a low profile. It doesn't matter if his son caused him to receive media attention, what matters is the fact he received it.

  There are a number of differences to the case of Suri Cruise. 1) Cruise is a minor and there is often stronger arguments of a right to privacy under BLP for minors - Griffin is not a minor and is capable of making his own decisions. 2) The child is not known for any of her own actions, but solely for those of her parents - Griffin came to media attention through his own actions in 2001 and chose to deny his son's comments in 2009 (he could have chosen to remain silent); active participation in publishing information about both events removes the privacy concerns about those issues (you don't tell a journalist about something you want to keep private). 3) I don't know the specifics of the Cruise case, but I suspect the child is only known for the single issue of her birth. Griffin is known for his mistake in 2001, the Tory's response to that mistake, his active participation with the media in 2001 and 2002 to talk about the mistake and his denial/correction of his son's statement in 2009. Road Wizard (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Verifiable perhaps, but there's a lack of notability.--Michig (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for reasons already stated. Edgar Griffin is not just a councillor and father of Nick Griffin, though that in itself may be just be sufficient to keep him in but would, admittedly, be borderline. His claim to fame includes that more significantly he was "vice-president in Wales of Iain Duncan Smith's party leadership campaign" and "vice Chairman of Montgomeryshire Conservative Association", i.e. he has been a senior Tory party official as well as councillor. Add to that his expulsion because of direct links with the BNP; that story in itself is important enough to be worth an article (party leader's aide expelled for helping a rival party!). And aside from all his Tory/BNP connections, he has been one of the most senior masons in the UK. Emeraude (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And does he have coverage for those qualifications? No. Does WP:POLITICIAN contain any mention of internal party positions? No. Arguing that the story is important does not make him important; see WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      Again WP:Politician is not relevant as the basic criteria are met and exceeded. The test is if there is sufficient source material to support an article; all the notability guidelines are is a quick reference to the types of articles that often have insufficient source material. They are not a blanket permission to delete all articles related to low-level politicians.

      You will also find that his senior position in the Tory party in 2001 has been noted by several of the sources in the article, so yes, there is "coverage". Road Wizard (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, insufficiently notable. You can't make someone notable by piling on a list of non-notable acheivements. Hairhorn (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Nick Griffin. This is virtually a WP:BLP1E: the only significant coverage relates to his expulsion from the Conservative party in 2001. While there is some minor coverage at later dates, it's hard to argue that makes him notable. I think he deserves mention in his son's article, but not an article of his own. Robofish (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expulsions from the Conservative Party do not happen every day you know. In fact, it's extremely rare. (His son's tiny party has expelled far more in the same time!) This makes the event significant in its own right, even without considering WHY he was expelled and the position he held in the party. So, his "acievement" in being expelled is notable. Merging into his son's already large article will lose the plot. Road Wizard has quite clearly demonstrated that basic criteria for inclusion have been adequately met. Emeraude (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really; lots of people are expelled from political parties (I know. I had one kicked out of the Liberal Democrats two weeks ago.) If you join another party, you're expelled. If you act in a way unbecoming, you're expelled. If you are an elected official and join another political grouping, you're expelled. To say that expulsion from a political party constitutes notability to pass BLP1E? No. Ironholds (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To say that expulsion from a political party constitutes notability to pass BLP1E? No. Agreed, but I'm not suggesting he's qualifying ONLY on the grounds of being expelled (though the natue of the expulsion is rather unusual, I think even a Lib Dem would agree). And the article says a lot more about E Griffin that that he was expelled from the Conservative Party. Emeraude (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm extremely surprised anyone thought it would be a good idea to delete this page. Notable person indeed. SE7^Talk/_Contribs 19:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you perhaps give, I dunno.. a reason? Since AfD != voting. Ironholds (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've never been asked to give a reason when I vote in an election!!! Besides, AfD is most definitely NOT a vote. To quote from WP:AFD: "Articles listed are debated for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. " and "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." (my emphasis)Emeraude (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, yes. That's what I'm saying. Ironholds (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems reasonably clear that EG's public fame is due solely to the context of his son - relatively trivial things like a person being thrown out of a political party wouldn't be covered in the news otherwise. With that in mind, it seems quite reasonable to merge this into Nick Griffin, which could easily support a paragraph on his father. 217.33.68.71 (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Nick Griffin into His son is the BNP chairman, his wife is a BNP candidate who ran against the guy whose campaign he joined, then because answered calls for his wife's campaign, he is kicked out of the party .. the failure of a failed party chairman to vet his campaign works doesn't really make him notable. An argument could be made that he is not even notable as a politician. The only reason anyone knows who he is is because of his son. Otherwise, this would not have been reported anywhere. He and his wife are also accountants for some school run by an italian neo-fascist who has connections to their son. Should that be included in the article as well? I actually would lean towards deleting, but, merging the relevant material (parents have connections/are members of the BNP members as well) into Nick Griffin seems reasonable. XinJeisan (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a small correction to your last point there; the sources say Edgar Griffin is not a member of the BNP and does not wish to be. Road Wizard (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why I put "have connections." Edgar Griffin's wife is a BNP member. If your son and wife are members of a party, I guess you have connections to it. That's what I mean. Didn't mean to imply that Edgar Griffin is a member. XinJeisan (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2010 (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.