Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart King
- 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 per the consensus below. Brings up an interesting conversation at WP:OUTCOMES. Certainly no bias against recreation if his career advances further in a way noted by reliable sources, or if concensus on the inherent notability of his position changes. Pastordavid (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet the notability criteria of WP:BIO, which specifically states local politicians and candidates for office are not automatically notable. The article fails to assert notability for anything else and reads remarkably like his own website. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and ample precedent that being a local councillor and/or a parliamentary candidate does not confer notability. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, common practice on Wikipedia (see WP:OUTCOMES) is that local councillors in major metropolitan cities such as London are likely notable enough for articles, even if councillors in most cities generally aren't. No vote, just $0.02 for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it states they are only like to be notable if they "(a) represent a historic first, such as the first woman, first person of colour or first LGBT person elected to a council, or (b) have received national or international press coverage" which I don't think is the case here. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "although precedent has favoured keeping councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London, as well as..." Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But he's on a Councillor on a Borough Council. London has (I think) 32 of them, each with 60 or so members. If he wins the parliamentary seat, he becomes sufficiently notable, but for now, Delete - fchd (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question from the ignorant - are these borough councils the highest municipal authority in London, or is there some kind of city-wide council as well? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The city-wide body is the Greater London Authority. - fchd (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of this I've started a discussion on WP:OUTCOMES to try and clarify which body is notable. I think is intended to apply to city wide bodies. If you take the examples listed (Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco and London) and include councillors in the count you would have 44, 50, 11 and around 1,500 people in each city notable for being elected. Please pop across and voice and opinion! BlinkingBlimey (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The city-wide body is the Greater London Authority. - fchd (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question from the ignorant - are these borough councils the highest municipal authority in London, or is there some kind of city-wide council as well? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But he's on a Councillor on a Borough Council. London has (I think) 32 of them, each with 60 or so members. If he wins the parliamentary seat, he becomes sufficiently notable, but for now, Delete - fchd (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "although precedent has favoured keeping councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London, as well as..." Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it states they are only like to be notable if they "(a) represent a historic first, such as the first woman, first person of colour or first LGBT person elected to a council, or (b) have received national or international press coverage" which I don't think is the case here. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In light of that, I interpret these borough councils to be sub-municipal bodies. I am a strong proponent of keeping articles on municipal councillors, but this seems a little far. Delete, although I'd be happy to reconsider if I'm misinterpreting anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2008 (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.