Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Taylor (Green politician)

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 keep. → Call me Hahc21 06:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Taylor (Green politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. The only claims to notability for this individual are they were once a principle speak of the Green Party of England and Wales and they have been a parliamentary candidate. These are not noteworthy for notability purposes. Sport and politics (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As joint Principal Speaker he was effectively joint party leader. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Comment - (this has potential for a merge) to Green Party of England and Wales, which as of this post does not mention the subject. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to look at Principal Speaker. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -The holding of this post of Principal Speaker does not make the subject notable. They have to have wider notability established by reliable third party sources. Simply holding one post in a small political party is not enough to make an individual notable (yes the Green Party are a small party, one MP two MEPs and a few councillors here and there, does not make them a medium or big party like UKIP, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives or Labour, etc.). In the same way hold municipal elected office in England does not make an individual notable. The post itself can be notable by its history, or high profile office holders, etc. in the same way the office of leader of a Municipal Council is potentially notable as an office. That though does not qualify the holders of that office for notability or inclusion in Wikiepida. There is also no reasoning as to how that post makes the individual holders notable, there is simply use of other stuff exists as a means of justification in this case, which is inappropriate in this case. Sport and politics (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I completely disagree. The Green Party, while not in the front rank, is certainly in the second tier of British political parties, along with such parties as UKIP and Plaid Cymru and has been for some time. In my opinion, its leaders are notable. That, also in my opinion, is common sense, and there is nothing absurd about common sense. What is, however, absurd is to prefer dogma ("nothing in Wikipedia specifically says they are notable so they can't be notable") over common sense. Remember WP:BURO? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I am almost certain you and I Necrothesp have no common ground and will never reach a compromise on this issue. I see this individual as clearly failing under WP:DISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTABLE per WP:POLITICIAN. This individual is not inherently notable just for holding the office of principle speaker of the Green Party. The individual notability of this subject must clearly be demonstrated or here will be an endless stream of indiscriminate article creation for the leader and deputy leader of every political party in the UK who has ever had an MP is the deputy leader or Chairman etc. of the Independent Community and Health Concern Party notable. I think not even though that party had an MP in Richard Taylor. Sport and politics (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As one of two Principal Speakers of the Green Party (by then represetned in European Parliament), he was certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did not hold elected office, and no evidence that the section of the party he was over conferred notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking he was only the leader of a section of the party? He was joint leader of the national party. Warofdreams talk 00:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - joint leader of a significant national party, albeit one of the more obscure principal speakers. Article has a source providing evidence of notability, anyone with access to printed media of the period could find more. Warofdreams talk 00:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by virtue of party leadership. I favor the lowest of barriers to inclusion of articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, without regard to size or ideology under the theory is that this is material that should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. If you want to call that a rationale based on the pillar and policy of "Ignore All Rules," that's fine. Carrite (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2014 (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.