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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 18:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Katie Dawson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This previously passed an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Dawson, in 2007: it hasn't been edited much since and inclusion standards have tightened since then. Ms Dawson is a local councillor, insufficient notability under WP:NPOL. The citations given are mostly routine local newspaper coverage and do not satisfy WP:GNG. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 11:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 11:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  ( 🗣️ Talk to me •  ✍️ Contributions) 11:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Wikipedia's standards for the notability of local politicians have been tightened up considerably since 2007 — it's now much more well-established that while members of the citywide London Assembly are accepted as notable, members of London's individual borough councils are not. But there's no other claim of notability for other reasons being shown here, and not nearly enough substantive media coverage to make her a special case on pure WP:GNG grounds — apart from a single article in a national newspaper which glancingly namechecks her existence in the process of being fundamentally about someone else, the other references here are the primary source website of her own political party and a handful of purely routine coverage in the borough's local pennysavers. This is not enough coverage to get a not inherently notable local politician over WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat ( talk) 16:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete: per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Local politician who doesn't otherwise meet WP:GNG. Marquardtika ( talk) 22:39, 14 July 2018 (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.