- 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. MBisanz talk 01:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Alan Weinberg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Borough Council leadership insufficient for notability under notability policy for UK local government politicians MapReader ( talk) 09:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Leadership of a borough council could potentially get a person over WP:NPOL #2 — but passage or failure of that criterion is conditional on the depth of reliable sourceability, not on the mere fact that the person exists. The depth of sourcing here is not adequate, however; it's referenced to just three fairly WP:ROUTINE pieces of local media coverage, which is a volume and range of geographic coverage that any local councillor in pretty much any town or city could always expect to receive. To get in the door, he needs to be shown as significantly more notable than the norm, such as through nationalizing coverage (or at least considerably more local coverage than this.) Bearcat ( talk) 18:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I think leadership of a London borough council is sufficient for notability, although merely being on the council wouldn't be. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- If there were a much better depth of reliable source coverage, then sure, it would be sufficient. But it's not a position that hands him an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of significantly better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 17:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete There is not a depth of sources to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- 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.