Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Roll-Pickering

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 of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Minor UK student/blogger who fails WP:WEB notability test. Article claims the blog http://timrollpickering.blogspot.com is one of the most popular political blogs in the UK without any supporting evidence (external reference link is just to the blog itself). Large majority of the 14,900 google hits for "Tim Roll-Pickering" are blog/bulletin board/newspaper forum comment posts by subject himself or student union websites or amateur political blogs connecting to his amateur political blog. Just 116 hits including 43 hits from his own blog for the google search term "timrollpickering" +blogspot. Cannot find material to support passing WP:WEB. FYI, the article subject is a Wikipedian - see User:Timrollpickering (12,100 google hits for "timrollpickering" but 11,600 of those hits originate from the en.wikipedia.org ___domain. 1,100 hits if you search for "timrollpickering" -wikipedia" - mainly forum posts by the subject) but a different user appears to have created the article. Bwithh 05:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and bury under a crossroads with a stake through the heart. A two-sentence article that cites the number of Google hits the fellow has? Sheesh. RGTraynor 06:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per outstanding nom.--Peta 06:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Paddles ^T_C 08:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, I sense deception here.--Andeh 10:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom. Xyrael ^T 16:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Amalas =^_^= 20:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Query Is he User:Timrollpickering? Saga City 00:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mention this in the nominationabove . But I don't think he created this article and he may not even be aware of this article. The user which did appears to have totally opposite political views from Timrollpickering and I think the user created the article in good faith Bwithh 00:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does User:Timrollpickering want this as a user subpage ? LOL. --64.229.225.229 15:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks! LOL! Timrollpickering 15:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In no way am I notable. Timrollpickering 15:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough .....yet Matthewfelgate 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree as per TRP. Matthew Platts 20:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree as per TRP. not currently notable enough - yet! alexmanchester

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.