Talk:Shaun Bailey, Baron Bailey of Paddington

message: Sorry.  I nominated this article for deletion but have totally forgotten my password.  This is a page about a candidate for elected office who has no other notability.  There is clear precedent that candidates for office are not sufficiently notable unless there is some other claim to notability.  I don't think any other claim is sufficiently asserted here - it really just seems to be a vanity page.  86.144.83.215 (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There appeared to be copyvio from his personal website, so I have done a partial tidy up, quoting third party references. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: [ This edit] by  has some good links, but looks like it's way too promotional. Even before that edit, it was looking promotional. Tagging as  until I get around to looking properly. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The promotional tone is back. The external links added in this edit are all promotional.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.226.204 (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional tone 

message: It appears that a Shaun Bailey shill has been editing this page for propaganda purposes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle for Hammersmith: Shaun Bailey, Andy Slaughter and the great Wikipedia mystery

message: Recent edits have removed information sourced from Dave Hill's London Bloghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog on guardian.co.uk.  Dave Hill is a professional journalist and as I understand it the blog is under Guardian editorial control, and so I believe is a reliable source as per Wikipedia definition: Identifying_reliable_sources. As such I believe that this information should be reinstated. Dastra (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of information sourced from the guardian website 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Shaun Bailey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070430235724/http://www.cps.org.uk:80/newsarchive/news/?pressreleaseid=37 to http://www.cps.org.uk/newsarchive/news/?pressreleaseid=37
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Recent edits have removed information about racist tweets and Islamophobic tweets shared by Shaun Bailey. There are numerous references for this, e.g. 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/shaun-bailey-islamophobia-sadiq-khan-london-mayor-tory-party-conservatives-a8558521.html and http://uk.businessinsider.com/shaun-bailey-conservative-candidate-2020-london-mayor-race-sadiq-khan-2018-9
This edit was performed by a Conservative Party supporter. Removing the sentence about racist tweets appears to go against the BLP guidance about balance. In particular, something isn't unbalanced simply because it's unfavourable to the subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.226.204 (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism and Islamophobia 

message: There is a section for this on the page, so I don't see why these comments are required in the lead paragraph. 
I call for them to be removed - if any objections, please comment your reasoning below before the discussion is closed and this is deemed consensual position. Susiloto (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede is supposed to summarise the article, the fact that there is a whole section on them supports the case for them being in the lede. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's absolutely appropriate to include material about this in the lead. So much of the coverage of Bailey covers these comments, and especially coverage of Bailey in which he's the main subject. Ralbegen (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

text: The material about accusations of Islamophobia and hinduphobia are a summary of reliable source coverage. They include long quotes of Bailey's own words and responses from Bailey's spokesperson and James Cleverly. The Hindustan Times article uses the phrase "anti-Hindu" rather than "Hinduphobic", so I'd be happy to see the word "Hinduphobia" replaced with "anti-Hindu views" and "Hinduphobic" with "anti-Hindu". I don't think it's really possible to cast into doubt that accusations have been made, and the accusations have received plenty of coverage—not just limited to the sources currently used in the article—so I don't see any case to remove them from the page. Ralbegen (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hindustan Times is, according to its own Wiki page, it was "founded [...] with roots in the Indian independence movement of the period ("Hindustan" being a historical name for India)." so it is not reliable for things pertaining to India/Hinduism/the east - it is obviously going to be biased in favour of these attributes. This is ven if it is generally a reliable source for WIKI on othger topics (for instance, science). Susiloto (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "Indian newspapers aren't reliable sources on subjects relating to Hinduism" is a convincing argument. Ralbegen (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamophobic and hinduphobic comments 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Shaun Bailey (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 04:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: It says that he was brought up by his mother and family because his father was a lorry driver. He then met his father and father's second family when he 13.
Who wrote this drivel. It should be deleted. Rustygecko (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father a lorry driver? 

message: Hi everyone, I've removed a sentence from the mayoral election section about a Labour councillor defecting to the Conservatives and supporting Bailey's campaign, because I don't think this is relevant on a page about Bailey as a person, it may be useful elsewhere (possibly the actual election article?) but I don't think here. Also, as the councillor doesn't have their own article, I don't think this is notable enough of an event to be included - DUE/UNDUE issues. If people disagree, please revert/discuss here obviously. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  19:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing sentence on Labour councillor 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Shaun Bailey (AM) →  – The abbreviation AM in the title is not common and familiar for most people enough to be used as disambiguation. Northern Moonlight | ほっこう 21:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 8 July 2021 

message: It would be interesting to have further input on this. Seeing as it has become a career-defining moment for Bailey, should it have its own section? At the moment, it is in the "other" section for his political career. Yellowmellow45 (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lockdown party