- Craig_Dillon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Subject is a well known former advisor to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and now a DC based political commentator on Fox News. Passes GNC.
Deletion seems to have happened immediately after the subject most recently appeared on the Tucker Carlson show discussing Joe Biden meeting the Queen in the UK. Therefore I imagine the deletion was something to do with him being on Fox News, rather than a legitimate reason for deletion. There was no discussion before deletion, the page was then salted, and "protected" to stop anyone from recreating it, which is madness and not how Wikipedia operates.
The fact that previous versions of the page and its sources cannot even be viewed anymore, means I do not see how we can have a fair and informed discussion about the legitimacy of this page.
The original page was well sourced with multiple links to reputable media articles about this subject including from The Times, The Telegraph and various others. The subject also makes regular appearances on Fox News, Sky News, BBC News and CNN, and there were multiple links to verify this.
He definitely passes the general notability guidelines. I understand the page was nominated for deletion in 2016, prior to his work with the Prime Minister. Now it doesn't make sense for him to not have a page, when he is clearly notable, whether you agree with him or not.
I also note the article included details about his previous career, he was a journalist at Sky News, again with multiple sourced articles and interviews focusing on him. He then advised multiple senior UK politicians, again well sourced, and there is a large amount of press around him being the first person in the UK to be tested for Covid-19 while he was working with the Prime Minister back in January 2020.
I call for the page to be reinstated and a nomination for deletion to be fairly debated, as is customary. T.corbett (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Ponyo: My apologies, I was not aware of the canvassing rule. I will remove. [[User talk:T.Corbett 1, 19.16 June 2021 (GMT)
- Comment I also note the first article for deletion is from 2006 and referencing a different Craig Dillon - this subject is not a musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.corbett (talk • contribs) 18:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse an article on this person has been deleted at AfD three times now. Given that any attempt to recreate it should at least come with convincing evidence that the subject is notable. I've had a look at the last deleted version and I can't say I agree with the OP's claim that the subject clearly passes the GNG. The article was refbombed to try to shore up claims to notability. He is quoted or mentioned in numerous articles about how British politicans are using the internet, but they don't constitute significant coverage. Several sources are about a time he was interviewing a famous actor and the actor said something controversial. Several sources are about the fact that he was briefly quarantined in a hospital in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, but they just cover him as a normal person and scarcely mention any of the reasons this article claims he's well known. This source is a local UK newspaper talking about how a local teenager has got lots of views on YouTube. Hut 8.5 19:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: in my opinion, these edits are still canvassing, given the filer does not contact everyone who !voted 'delete' but only those who !voted 'keep'. Further, endorse deletion and salt as closer, deletion was fairly debated over the appropriate period (despite what the nominator appears to be suggesting in the final line of their statement above), and for not the first time this "fair debate" reached the same end outcome of 'delete'. Daniel (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I wish the AfD had been better attended, but it seems to have come to the correct result. I would salt the article as well given the promotionalism, its number of times at AfD (even ignoring the first one), and canvassing. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: I understand there have been a few Afd, however the last one was over 4 years ago, and the subject has clearly increased his notoriety in that time, for example, he is the entire subject of this article from The Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/meet-millennials-helping-tory-leadership-hopefuls-go-viral/) about how he has been advising senior politicians including Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Here is another source for his recent appearance on the Tucker Carlson show on Fox News - https://video.foxnews.com/v/6219746150001. As noted above, "He is quoted or mentioned in numerous articles about how British politicians are using the internet", with the majority of these articles being about him and his work advising these politicians. I think we are being misguided by some of his previous sources - the articles about YouTube and asking a question to Daniel Radcliffe. I agree these alone don't warrant a page, however given that he is regularly appearing on my TV, and with his past work advising Prime Minister Boris Johnson, we should have a page to document him. Maybe the case is that the article needed to be tidied up, but certainly not deleted and salted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by T.corbett (talk • contribs)
- Because you're the nominator, our convention is that you don't get a !vote as well. I've struck the "overturn" but left your reasoning.—S Marshall T/C 10:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 10:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't disagree with most of my colleagues above about this person's notability as an individual, but I would note that I think there is an encyclopaedic article to be written about the eclectic and motley colletion of individuals who have the honour or disgrace (depending on your point of view) to have been Boris Johnson's advisers. Dominic Cummings,Alex Allan and Jonathan Jones are independently notable, but there will be scope for an article that covers Jayne Ozanne, James Morton, Ellen Murray, and Samuel Kasumu. You could make an arguable case for covering Craig Dillon there.—S Marshall T/C 10:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a good merge availabel to his firm, Westminster Digital., which is ever weaker than this--or if this should be kept, vice versa. . The two put together might make an article. I dont wsee how the articles uggested ksu above could possible avoid POV/ DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly true that each of the sources has a political point of view. But NPOV explains how to construct neutral articles from biased sources in its first sentence.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse:
- The close of AFD 5, which is what is being appealed, was a good close, with no error by the closer.
- Is the rule against canvassing sufficiently well-known, or do we need to publicize it more?
- The decision by the closer to Salt after very limited discussion on AFD 5 is supported by the previous discussions, including previous recommendations to Salt.
- The title has not been salted in draft space, so a draft can be reviewed, and the salt dissolved if appropriate.
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|