Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy McClintock

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 SPEEDY DELETE per WP:BLP WP:SNOW WP:V WP:RS WP:AUTO WP:BOI WP:N and the rest of the unholy alphabet soup. Incredible critical article with not one reliable citation. Patchwork of blogs, self-publicity and a 'party' that draws virtually nothing on google. -Docg 00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy McClintock

Jeremy McClintock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A curious mixture of speculation and unsourced criticism. Little on his party here and little more on the man here. Delete. Bridgeplayer 00:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 00:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable.--Meno25 00:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. There don't seem to be any reliable sources. Not verifiable. --Wafulz 00:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure how notable this guy can be, other than that he's a loud voice. --Dennisthe2 00:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the content is not verifiable, and is non-notable. — Arjun 00:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quite odd. Really not sure whether this is a hoax, or someone having a personal crisis. Anyway, not notable: just circular references between non-reliable sources. --A bit iffy 01:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless is heavily cleaned up. Article isn't sourced well and at this point seems some-what notable...but not with the citations given.Ganfon 02:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has been heavily cleaned up. Is notable e.g. "Jeremy McClintock" has three of the top five search results on Google here [1] and here [2] and here [3] --Rupertchaucer 05:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC) — Rupertchaucer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • He seems to be a jokey blogger (jeremymcclintock.typepad.com); nothing else is verified and most of it is far-fetched. E.g., "he was alleged to have been arrested in the monkey enclosure of Belgrade Zoo at 3 o'clock in the morning", plus the link to the website of his supposed political party doesn't work. Oh yeah, Delete Allon Fambrizzi 06:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
  • Delete for insufficient notability or verifiability. Doczilla 07:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reliable sources indicating notability per WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 07:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Smells a bit like a hoax. Rupertchaucer appeared at WP today wrote the article and has defended it with meaningless links. --Kevin Murray 07:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think there are enough reliable sources of information about the subject. They aren't cited because they don't exist. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think anyone in favour of mandatory custard should be supported but I am suspecting a hoax. Grace Note 07:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This man is for real – I work for a Kent/London borders free newspaper in the UK and I had an assignment to interview him just before Christmas. He is only beginning grassroots press work/campaigning now to get in the public eye, so he said. McClintock comes across like Tory leader Cameron with his beguiling mix of pragmatic speech and political principles. Clearly, he will have to match the depth of his ambitions with media to match – he must be a technophobe! Retain —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M al-Nour (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment: Was the interview published? J Milburn 17:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, the guy is real, he probably could also fit under notable but this article certainly does not assert that. I could change my vote if appropriate changes are made by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The lack of citations seems to be because there are no reliable sources of info about the subject. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete He seems real, but no reliable citations are there to assert his notability. If they are provided, then keep the article. ← ANAS Talk? 17:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete What the article says about him is notable but there is no verifiable resources so I can not vote keep. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 22:39, 8 January 2007 (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.