Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iain Catto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 - Yomanganitalk 00:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iain Catto

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Non-notable. Everyone who have edited the article so far is people who have come across him (badly) during his involvement with EUSA. KTC 23:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Non-notable. A number of points were made with no sources (citations for being sacked for Gross Misconduct, etc.) Whilst the Guilty plea, and conviction are matters of public record, links to Home Address, and so on are not necessary. 192.25.22.11 12:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The reference to Mr Catto's dismissal for gross misconduct appears now to have been removed, but, if editors are interested, the source is here. MichaelMcNab 10:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Multiple verifiable sources, public figure. Catchpole 16:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
There's no doubting the sources being verifiable and from reputable sources. However, I don't see how Mr Catto qualify as a public figure. Sure he's known to those involved with EUSA and the unfortunate Mr Fleming and family, but anyone outside of those circles, not really. KTC 22:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The sentencing of Mr Catto was a front-page story for a national newspaper. A combination of his political career (as a Lothian Region Councillor and, in the words of the Evening News, "a man once seen as a future Tory leader in the Lothians" [1]), his students' association notoriety and his crime evidently make him notable in the eyes of The Scotsman, so why not Wikipedia? MichaelMcNab 10:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There may be POV issues here which may need to be addressed, but claims of non-notability are total rubbish. The local and national media certainly took a different view 129.215.218.4 11:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • BBC News Online: [2]
    • Edinburgh Evening News: [3] [4]
    • Daily Record [5]
    • Law Society of Scotland [6]
    • Other coverage included The Metro, Daily Mail, Daily Star, The Express and The Mirror. If you want Lexis Nexis links for those I can provide.
  • Delete. The only claim for notability is in the four years he spent on Lothian Regional Council, where he was not Conservative leader but a few people thought he might get to be in the future. He is not notable as a criminal. David | Talk 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree it should stay. This man had the necessary contacts to get Boris Johnson to stand for Lord Record of Edinburgh University. He was a local politician, a well-known contributor to the students' association and was involved in a think tank, through which he gained recognition by writing on drug legalisation and ID cards. This work was also quoted in the local press. If the press is interested, then I do not see why a Wikipedia entry is unreasonable.128.189.146.11 12:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A clear delete. Obviously not a public figure. Jefffire 20:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This minor fraudster is not encyclopedically notable. Wikipedia is not a police report archive nor is it a news report database . Media coverage - even widespread international coverage by major news media - does not automatically equal encyclopedic notability. No ex officio encyclopedic notability for local councillors. Bwithh 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO in that he's only known for the fraud -- nothing else. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not every criminal who makes the papers is encyclopedia material, and this is an example of one that isn't. In fact, we should err far on the side of caution here, as articles that have nothing to say about their subject but negative things (like this one) have to be carefully watched to avoid defamation and libel. Mangojuicetalk 05:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 05:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 11:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The fact that a person was properly the subject of press coverage does not make them necessarily notable. This is an example where they are not. Gabrielthursday 20:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough of a public figure to warrant an article on his criminal history, or on anything else. Sandstein 08:08, 10 October 2006 (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.