Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Mailer

Add links
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. Stifle (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mailer

[edit]
Peter Mailer (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 person: falls under WP:BLP1E as a person only 'notable' for one event. He's an unsuccessful political candidate, but the only significant coverage of him in reliable sources relates to his 2010 conviction for forgery. That isn't enough to base a Wikipedia biography on. The continued presence of this article raises serious BLP issues. Robofish (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete This is a close call. The legal troubles did get a fair amount of press coverage. But its pretty clear he doesn't meet the guidelines for notable politicians. So, if he is notable, it is for one very negative happening. Being that this is a BLP tipped the scales for me toward delete. David Able 21:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A not notable political failed candidate with a rap sheet attached, clear BLP issues as neither his fraud conviction or his political career is wikipedia notable. Although it doesn't alter the lack of notability, editing efforts to to address the BLP issues and reduce the weight of the conviction content in the BLP have been repeatedly reverted by the creator of the article User:Emeraude. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate, forgery conviction only attracted local press coverage. January (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I said elsewhere, the only way Mailer is notable is through the intersection of his conviction and his political "career." The problem is his notability as a politician is so weak that the only thing that stands out is his conviction. The opening line of the article is unsupported and, as far as I can tell, untrue: "Peter Mailer ... is a leading member of the British National Party".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I read somewhere that a whole party section (in London?) was expulsed, since two were infiltrators from MI6, two from anti-fascist organisations, one openly gay and one living with a "coloured" girl-friend. So, he might be relatively leading? walk victor falk talk 02:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This AfD process is apparently coming about to resolve BLP issues with the article. This is NOT the purpose of the AfD process. Elsewhee, the, question of BLP policy for this article is being actively discussed (see here and I can only assume that the AfD is an attempt to short circuit that process. If their are BLP issues they should be debated at the appropriate place, either the article's discussion page or the BLP noticeboard. Be that as it may, let me deal with both the BLP and the deletion nomination.
The BLP issues revolve around Mailer's being investigated for alleged offence of racialy motivated public order offence. No one has questioned the veracity, nor the verifiablity of the article; indeed, to do so would be pointless since all is cited from reliable sources. What seems to be the stumbling point is whether it is acceptable to mention that Mailer was twice arrested, but was not charged. Some have implied that this means he is entirely innocent - this misses the point, in several ways. Firstly, the article does say quite clearly (or did) that the Crown Prosecution Service did not press charges. There are a whole variety of reasons why the CPS does not press charges, the most likely here being that a prosecution would not be in the public interest. What it most certainly does not mean is that he was acquitted or that hey found the material complained of was not displayed. Secondly, the events as described did happen, though that still leaves open the question of whether or not they cast the subject unduly in a bad light. Thirdly, aside from the reliable sources quoted (including, note, mainstream media at the time he was a candidate for election) there are countless other references (search for Peter Mailer on Google to see). Wikipedia would not accept these as reliable sources, given they are from political groups or blogs either opposed to Mailer or passionately devoted to him. (This, of course, does not mean they are untrue.) Of the latter, the wording is almost always the same, indicating a shared source. That source is Peter Mailer, i.e. he is his own publicist. It's a generally accepted principle of law that you cannot slander yourself; on that basis, it is fair to use the information. The source of the stories is (or was) followable from some of those sites, his party's website - [1] - please note the name of the title page. Unfortunately, I say "was" because the BNP has removed all mention of Peter Mailer from its website since his conviction. Anyone going to bnp.org.uk and using their search facility will find no trace - unusual for a party organisr, local candidate, national candidate and European candidiate, but understandable considering the BNP's desire to present itself as a law-abiding party. In other words, at the time of his public order problems he was a hero, now he's an embarrassment.
As I said before, the question of whether or not this article should be deleted is not relevant to the BLP debate. If there is a BLP problem, it can be sorted. Any calls for deletion above should be disregarded if they give BLP as the sole reason, in the same way that we do not delete article just because they are poorly sourced or just because they are badly written - we make the necessary changes and improve them.
The issue here can only be whether or not Mailer reaches the notability guideline, and I stress that it is just that, a guideline. Now there is no reason within the general Wikipedia:Notability guideline for deletion; this article and its contents conforms. Looking at the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline (note, again, guideline) as applied to politicians, there would appear to be a debatable case for deletion. However, 1 Mailer is not notable just because he is a politician. 2 Nor is he notable just as a convicted fraudster. But put the two together, and combine with the facts that 3 he committed his frauds and was involved in a criminal investigation for public order while a candidate for election by a party that loudly and vociferously proclaims its policies on law and order. Taking all three together, he becomes something else. This seems to be covered by Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." (and that is the case). Emeraude (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, other than for one event. Emeraude, if you want specific policies, then look at WP:V and WP:NPOV - and ask yourself if there is sufficient information about this person in reliable sources for us to present a neutral, balanced article about him. I cannot see evidence of such coverage, because he is notable for the one event. Also, BLP concerns are absolutely a relevent consideration in AfD, or anywhere else on Wikipedia.  Chzz  ►  20:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specific policies? WP:BIO starts "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline." WP:N begins "This page is about Notability guidelines". I referred to both above. One event? 2009 European election is one. 2010 general election is two. Unfair dismissal of employee is three. Failure to pay her compensation awarded and assets frozen is four. Reported for public order offence is five. Reported again is six. Fraud offences is seven. And soon to come confiscation of criminal assets hearing will be eight. Sufficient information in reliable sources? BBC News. Daily Mirror. Newspaper reports of public order complaints. Newspaper reports of trial. Newspaper reports of conviction. Newspaper reports of sentencing. Emeraude (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Events generally don't count towards a person's notability if the event itself isn't notable, and none of the events look notable. The notability guidelines are at WP:EVENT, but in general the event needs to have some kind of ongoing coverage after the event has taken place (and not just routine reporting on any subsequent trial or sentencing). If the BBC and Daily Mirror coverage you mean is the listings of candidates in the 2009 and 2010 elections, that doesn't count (otherwise every MP and MEP candidate would be notable, contrary to WP:POLITICIAN). This leaves a handful of mentions in local papers, which isn't substantial coverage. I say this with some regret, because I'd love to see more articles on Wikipedia showing what the BNP are really like. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - considering the rap sheet state of the article and the objections as commented upon on the talkpage I would prefer the article and talkpage is deleted and a redirect created if desired after. Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note process: "Deleting a biography in these cases instead of merely redirecting it makes recovering useful information from the page history difficult, and should be done only when there are relevant reasons other than lack of notability for removing the article from the mainspace." (WP:BIO#Politicians Note 13) Also, please note that "the rap sheet state of the article and the objections as commented upon on the talkpage" would still subject to an ongoing discussion if the article had not been brought here deliberately to short circuit the discussion, byt three editores who had between them made more than two dozen edits to the article! Emeraude (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per reasoning given above.4meter4 (talk) 08:19, 26 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Mailer&oldid=1087600451"