Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Bozier

: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 keep. Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

=[[Luke Bozier]]=

:{{la|Luke Bozier}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luke_Bozier Stats])

:({{Find sources|Luke Bozier}})

This seems to be a textbook WP:BLP1E. Furthermore, it does not meet either of the criteria for WP:PERP, and there haven't even been any convictions because the story broke less than a week ago (WP:NOTNEWS). Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep His switching of parties made national headlines and has his more recent scandal. That would make it WP:BLP2E would it not? Francium12 (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak keep only. He has been no more than a party apparachnik so far. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Bozier is notable as the co-founder of the social network Menshn, as the co-author of a book on the Labour party's policy towards business, for his defection to the Conservatives - which was discussed in the House of Commons at Prime Minister's Questionshttp://labourlist.org/2012/01/pmqs-verdict-the-day-satire-died/ - and for his recent run-in with the law. The article has also been considerably expanded with additional material (by me).Zippy2112 (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E. Everything that needs to be said about this individual could be included in the Menshn section of the Louise Mensch article. He was never a prominent member of either the Labour or Tory Party, happens to run a website like probably thousands of other non-notable people and the allegations don't make him notable either. I would support a merge of this into Menshn if the consensus is not to delete. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - the contents of the article are sourced and meet General notability guidelines. While the WP:BLP1E analysis may be correct, on the other hand where are people suggesting that this should be merged to? I don't see how LB's legal problems have any place in the Louise Mensch article. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

: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.