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. Randykitty ( talk) 15:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

Non notable politician. Local Councilor is not enough for NPOL. Lord Mayor is an unelected ceremonial figure head rotated on a yearly basis. He lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but they do more to demonstrate the lack of good coverage than going an way to support GNG. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Subject has substantial recognition in numerous reliable sources. Qualitee123 (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Holds a ceremonial position that doesn’t pass WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 04:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do significantly better than this. The notability test for mayors attaches to directly-elected executive mayors, not the ceremonial kind who just automatically rotate in and out of the position on an annual basis — and while Liverpool is a large and prominent enough city that its city councillors might be deemed to pass WP:NPOL #2 if the article were genuinely substantive and well-referenced, those words do not describe this article. The notability test for local politicians is the ability to write and source a good article, not just the ability to drop a giant cluster reference bomb of 25 mostly primary sources on a single sentence stating that he exists. I also suspect some form of direct conflict of interest editing here, given that the creator's edit history (including deleted edits) focuses very disproportionately on people with the specific surname Concepcion. Bearcat ( talk) 16:39, 22 May 2019 (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.