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 no consensus. About half of the people commenting think that the sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:GNG, the other half does not. Since that is something about which people will in good faith disagree, this means we don't have a consensus to delete.  Sandstein  07:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Lee (British politician) (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)

Appears to be an almost-identical version of an article previously deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Lee (British politician). I have placed a copy of the old article here for anyone who wants to compare. It looks to me like there have not been significant additions (but a couple refs and sentences have been added, so I'm taking it to AfD instead of speedily deleting. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I re-created this article, and I must declare an interest since I do know George. The main change (in addition to adding refs from reliable sources, a number of which appeared since the earlier article) is that the earlier article gave no indication of why he might be notable. The fact that he would, if elected, be the first enthnic Chinese UK MP has attracted considerable interest in the media. He meets WP:N because there has been "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.". NBeale (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep- the first source in the article doesn't seem to be working right, so I can't verify that one. But the other two non-primary sources are enough that this gentleman passes the GNG. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The comment below is something someone posted late to the old AfD, along with a comment on the article talkpage. It's about the current repost of the article, so I am reproducing it here; as it was posted several weeks before this AfD was started, however, people are free to discount it if it's deemed irrelevant. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[The article creator] is the man who is maintaining the page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Epeefleche/Nicholas_Beale. He states that he knows George Lee personally somewhere in the history. He’s also, I assume, a Conservative Party member as he’s having input into policy documents, which he didn’t disclose:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:mPTiTVOJCg8J:www.conservative-technology.org/docs/Digital%2520Economy.pdf+%22nicholas+beale%22+conservatives&hl=en&gl=uk&sig=AHIEtbSsBdVT68rARMr6UAojO_1oLYiyng

He has since added a series of references in an attempt to increase the 'notability' of the article. However, these all refer to a single press push from Conservative Headquarters, and do not as such constitute notability - is the man who wins the lottery today notable because of his momentary press coverage?

I see no grounds to maintain the article, and I consider Nicholas Beale to be operating in the face of an editorial decision as part of a personal interest pursuit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinloo (talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's stay away from personal attacks and OR and try to judge the notability of the article on its merits. As I say, I know George, so I'll stay away from this page and let others decide. NBeale (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Being a PPC does not make him notable, even if he is ethnic Chinese. I wonder if his role in the Black police association is good enough. However I am concerned about the tactics of User:NBeale repeatedly recreating articles previously deleted at AfDs. Martin451 (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can't decide whether the coverage in the national press is enough to satisfy the general notability guideline. However, if this article stays it needs a complete rewrite. At the moment, it is little more than a promotional soapbox for the candidate. If no-one fixes it, make it a stub. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Politician. The article reads like an election statement by or on behalf of the candidate. It is full of unsupported spin and propaganda. This is a misuse of Wikipedia. GNUSMAS : TALK 10:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The primary noteability offered above is potential, not existing. Only one ref is specifically about the subject of the article (others are mentions) and I can't get the two Camden New Journal links to work. I would not say the subject meets noteability at present. Random name (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Have you read the news article about him in a major newspaper? [1] He gets other news coverage as well. Dream Focus 13:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the one article (and a few other mentions) enough to constitute noteability? I don't suppose there's any hard and fast guideline. Random name (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Having reviewed the noteability guidelines, I would say that the coverage listed does not constitute significant coverage; I will stick with my delete comment. Random name (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources - a combination of incidental and local coverage and a puff piece in the Telgraph - do not in my view add up to significant coverage. If this guy passes WP:GNG (which only gives a presumption of notability), its very marginal, and I think the clear failure to meet WP:POLITICIAN and unlikelihood that he will win election weigh more strongly towards a delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only one significant source (The Daily Telegraph), possibly also The Independent (behind a pay barrier) + local press (the links given don't work, but it's possible to find others) - not enough to meet WP:GNG. It is also worrying that it reads like an election leaflet (with a UK general election pending, I think this is an abuse of Wikipedia) and that the article creator is a personal friend of the subject. If he is elected, then by all means he'll deserve an article, until then it should be deleted. --NSH001 (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Some of it seems to have been lifted almost directly from George Lee's Conservative Party webpage, which is listed once in a footnote, but isn't used as a source for the sentences it almost copies:

• Conservative Party: "George Lee was born in a converted pig shed in a poor village in the New Territories of Hong Kong."

• Wikipedia: "Lee was born to poverty in a converted pig shed in rural Tai Po, in Hong Kong’s New Territories."

• Conservative Party: "He was only one when his parents left him and his siblings in the care of a family friend to head to Britain to start a new life. From the age of five, instead of going to school, he was forced to work in a toy factory making plastic flowers and toy soldiers."

• Wikipedia: "His parents left Hong Kong when he was one, emigrating to the UK. Lee and his siblings were placed in the care of a neighbour, who put them (Lee from the age of five) to work in a toy factory making plastic flowers and toy soldiers."

• Conservative Party: "He rejoined his parents when he was 10, arriving with only one word of English, 'tomorrow'."

• Wikipedia: "With only one word of English, "tomorrow", Lee went to school at the local comprehensive ..." SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep And further clean-up; of help would possibly be some of these sources (not all in English but online translator may help) and three pages more (roughly 15-18) which have links and jpegs. -- Banjeboi 06:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Challengers in elections are often stated to not be notable, but I would give this man the benefit of the doubt. Improvement of the references (see talk item by me), and efforts toward WP:NPOV should allow this article to be kept. Advocates of deletion may be motivated by political animus. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly you're free to feel that way, but statements like "Advocates of deletion may be motivated by political animus." are neither useful nor appropriate for this page. We're providing input into a decision about a wikipedia page, not evaluating the man's character or political worthiness. Random name (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, arguments to keep a page on a politician are just as prone to be politically motivated as deleting it. But accusing someone of either without good reasons to back this up is a complete violation of Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- In the run up to a general election, I do not think it is viable to delete articles on candidates from the main parties. The right time for this will be in the days following the election, when we will know which were unsuccessful. Until then, we must be patient. I did a little tidying up, but there are two footnotes (from newspapers) that are not linked to the text, or not adequately. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable purely by virtue of being a PPC. We will inevitably have a lot of articles on PPCs in the next few months, and it is good to be clear what the notability criteria mean - we should certainly not keep just any article on a major party PPC; some are not notable, have little or no independently verifiable information written about them, and stand little to no chance of being elected. Lee is not quite in that category; his candidacy has attracted some publicity, including the quite substantial profile in the Daily Telegraph. However, excluding one interview in a student paper, all the other media presented seems to just include quotes from him or very brief information. The article intro implies he founded the Black Police Association. If true, this would be significant, but the reference for this is down, and an unreferenced sentence later in the article simply states that he was a founder member - very different! If the article does end up being kept, it needs thorough clean up. Warofdreams talk 00:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They may not meet Politician guideline - I'm not familiar but didn't feel the need to verify - but they do seem to meet GNG -- Banjeboi 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe he does pass the GNG; I'm always suspicious of the independence of coverage of political candidates by papers broadly sympathetic to their views, and relying almost entirely on one Telegraph article to demonstrate notability is problematic. But it's clearly better than the coverage of some other PPCs who have had articles nominated recently. Warofdreams talk 11:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to sources already in the article I have linked above to at least two dozen more, in several languages and from a variety of sources. No doubt some are sympathetic but that is for editors to sort out adhering to how to apply sources and what content to include. The sourcing exists and is about him is purpose of this discussion as to whether GNG is even met. I believe it has. -- Banjeboi 12:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Daily Telegraph is admittedly generally pro-Conservative, though still a WP:RS. But Operation Black Vote is in general highly anti-Conservative, and the fact that there is a large article about George there is evidence IMHO that the coverage is not confined to sympathetic sources. Nor should we dismiss Chinese language coverage NBeale (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:POLITICIAN and very borderline WP:GNG. Not enough to justify keeping in my opinion. Potentially move to NBeale's userspace pending an election win?. Turgan ^Talk 12:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, major party parliamentary candidate, plenty of press coverage to demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we should regard all major party candidates for national office as notable, because there is, as here, always sufficient coverage. That the papers aligned with one party will give greater coverage to its own candidates is true, but this is the same for all candidates, including the ones who win. averages out. Being one of the top 1292 politicians in the country is notable--and correspondingly for other countries with similar political systems. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UK is not a two party system. The Liberal Democrats are also a main party, as are Plaid Cymru in Wales, the SNP in Scotland, and the Northern Ireland parties. This can give 3-4 PPC per seat. If we also include the Greens, UKIP, and the BNP, who all have seats in the EU parliament, so could be considered major, then we could easily be looking at 5 people fighting each seat, that is over 3000 people. Martin451 (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Automatically keeping all articles on PPCs is a very bad idea. They should be subject to exactly the same criteria as other articles - we don't want to have to review possibly several thousand articles after the election. --NSH001 (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

commentIs he one of the top 1292 politicians in the country? Or just one of 1292 (or more) potential politicians in the country?Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources for an article, at least for the time being; I would recommend against deleting the articles of any major-party candidates in the run-up to an election, in any case, as their notability will be strongly affected by that event. If he doesn't win, we can reconsider his notability after the election, but if he does there won't be any question about it. Robofish (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and GNG. The evidence shown by SlimVirgin is quite curious as well. JBsupreme (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Holborn and St Pancras (UK Parliament constituency). Fails WP:POLITICIAN and GNG. having an article on every single PPC is silly, and Lee is extremely unlikely to win this seat as it seems to be a safe Labour seat. Martin451 (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only notable thing about him seems to be

A. He has yet to be ellected to parliment (there will be a lot of PPC's), that covers a all PPC's. B. He may (the source does not seem to work, so I will tag it) have set up the BPA (should this indead be the case then I would change my vote to keep, that would make him notalbe).Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Operation Black Vote George "was one of the founding members of the Black Police Association" - this is also claimed byThe Telegraph. Although it is conceivable that the Telegraph has got it wrong OBV would certainly not have done. NBeale (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I do not think that being one of the founder members makes him notable, after all how many founding members were there? Unless it can be shown that his input was vital to its setting up.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the first two sources don't work, but seem to be a local paper. Looking at the others, I don't see notability apart from his candidacy, and I do not agree that candidates from major parties should automatically be considered notable. As pointed out above, it is not easy in the UK to define "major party", and on any acceptable definition there would be well over 2,000 candidates included. Many of them are standing in unwinnable seats, to show the flag and gain experience; some may go on to get elected later, but many will drop back into obscurity. In the present case, Lee is undoubtedly from a major party, but one of the sources cited says "The seat is not even on the Conservatives' winnable list". If he does well he may be selected for a winnable seat in five years' time, but that's WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 30 January 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.