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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Page[edit]

Tony Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable political candidate, fails WP:BIO; BLP issues. I can't find sufficient coverage of him in reliable sources to justify an article; he's got various mentions in passing, but virtually no direct coverage. Those few articles that do focus on him directly do so in a rather negative light, further suggesting this article should be deleted for WP:BLP reasons. Robofish (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. His sexual exploits are WP:UNDUE, and 'acrimonious' is the article author's unsourced WP:POV and/or WP:OR. Kudpung (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both not notable and in violation of BLP. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as stated above. Krashlandon ^(talk) 04:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: this man is clearly not notable per WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. --Lincolnite (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone, with added disgust that the WP:UNDUE details of his sex life have been part of the article since 2006 (!!!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - I also note - User:Shakehandsman's edits to the article that focused on the attack content. Off2riorob (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've edited almost ever single section of the article expanding some significantly and therefore taking focus away from the offences if anything thank you very much. Also the content has been there for four years and I've simply changed it to reflect the actual offence rather than the previous vague term. Similarly I've detailed the fact that the offences occurred a long time ago which is also an important addition for any such controversial content. Whether the article needs deleting or not is one matter but it was more in need of deletion before my contributions. --Shakehandsman (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Reading East (UK Parliament constituency). Whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in an article like this, this is a clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:58, 29 January 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.