Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Hinchcliffe (political strategist)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hinchcliffe (political strategist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability - an MP is notable, their office staff aren't. Cabayi (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NPOL is not applicable to office staff, subject should be compared to WP:GNG. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:Promo — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs)
Delete - what the nominator said; the sources are largely about Fabian Hamilton, and while I enjoyed his anti-grammar school rant on the Huffington Post, that's a piece written by him, not about him, which is no good for an independent article. He has the potential to be notable in, say, ten years time, but that's no good. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why wasn't it CSD'd A7? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't meet the criteria - in this case there's a case to merge with Hamilton's article or it's possible my google-fu is not very good. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet !votes Special:Diff/801277179

MergeI propose merging this with Fabian Hamilton as it seems extremely relevant to his page.Pigeon0999 (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Anything Hamilton does publicly is directed through him so should be merged

Merge Think a merge with Hamilton would be best as he, apparently, controls the whole media strategy and public affairs of Hamilton's office and Shadow Cabinet positionFirefox09101 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Fabian Hamilton article. Not relevant enough for own page, but definitely notable enough to be linked if he is controlling whole media output of a Shadow Minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thingthing11 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Thingthing11 (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sockpuppetry reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Firefox09101. Cabayi (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2017 (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.