Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lib Peck (2nd nomination)

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. It's close-run, but ultimately, the keep side's arguments that there is coverage have been successfully refuted, primarily by The Gnome. I don't give material weight to the WP:VAGUEWAVE reference to WP:BASIC either. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lib Peck[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BLP of an appointed city-level bureaucrat and former borough councillor, not reliably sourced as the subject of enough coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2.
The role she currently holds is not an "inherently" notable one that would automatically guarantee a Wikipedia article just because she exists, and neither is her prior role as a borough councillor -- at these levels of office, the rule is not "automatically notable because they exist", but "must be the subject of a significant volume of media coverage to establish that they have some nationalized significance".
But that's not what the sourcing here is: of the eleven footnotes, seven are primary sources (government or business databases, raw tables of election results, content self-published by her own employer, her own LinkedIn and Twitter, etc.) that are not support for notability at all; one is a blog; one is a community hyperlocal piece that isn't about her, but just glancingly namechecks her existence in an article whose primary subject is her predecessor; and one is a piece of her own bylined writing (and thus she isn't its subject.)
There's only one footnote (BBC) that counts as valid support for notability at all, and that's not enough. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more than just one WP:GNG-worthy source.
(Note: the first discussion was also about her, but this doesn't qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content -- even though it isn't really a strong notability claim, "director of the violence reduction unit" is still new content that wasn't true at all yet at the time of the first discussion.) Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs work, and I've done some of it since the nomination, added in reporting on her work as the first director of London, UK's anti violence unit. I've dropped the Twitter citation and replaced it with better ones. As it stands, it needs more work, but I think is good enough to remain up. I see this as a real example of us needing to improve rather than delete. CT55555 (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pass WP:BASIC. Spkabil (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. An actual pseudo biography and Political career resume (What Wikipedia is not). There are some NPOV issues as shown here. Although Wikipedia reportedly has unlimited space this does not mean a local politician or political appointee deserves an article. With that criteria, every local politician, city councilperson, or appointee worldwide would warrant an article. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is usually used in the context of discussing the extent to which editors were neutral, not subjects of the article or their employer. That doesn't seem like like a NPOV. I don't think anyone said we should keep this simply because she is a politician or council person or appointee. I think it's clear people are arguing that she specifically is notable based on the sources that support that. CT55555 (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only count one GNG-qualifying source and don't see any additional ones in a quick BEFORE search. Just not enough reliable SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 12:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, with the latter warning us that just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. To check the sources invoked we have to wade beyond the subject's LinkedIn profile, some news items about crime in London, such as this, where Peck is mentioned or quoted, and trivial announcements about appointment changes, such as this or this. We are then left with very little that could support independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are significant articles about her in The Guardian, the BBC, and other London sources. She is named in dozens of Guardian articles - many by virtue of her political position, but as London is a major city serving in a visible position there is notable. The position of Director of the Violence Reduction Unit for London is more than just a "local politician". Lamona (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forensics: The BBC reference is a straight-forward and simple report about filling the position of Violence Reduction Unit chief and the article's focus is on the choice of the mayor (who also gets the photo), with details about how his choice was criticized. And the Guardian articles are not about our subject. The first is about Steve Reed resigning as Lambeth council leader, accompanied by Reed's photo, the second is a report on Peck describing the new "police stop-and-search" tactic (just barely but fairly about our subject), and the third one is actually a rather old report about the PM's suggestion that Clapham fire station should be closed - the Lambeth Council leader, i.e. Peck, expresses the council's objection. And these are the best ones. -The Gnome (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how an article that is entirely about her appointment (BBC) and that quotes her extensively is "only about the mayor". There are many guardian articles beyond those in this WP article, all about her work as a politician. None are "biographies" of her but the total adds up to a political person with accomplishments. As per NPOL: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." I definitely consider this significant press coverage, and that's just in the Guardian - I don't have easy access to other UK papers. Lamona (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you peruse in detail that "significant coverage" you'll see that it's about some other issue and not about our subject. We have been through this so many times. One thousand newspaper articles about company XYZ Ltd, all mentioning me as the financial manager of the company, do not add up to some sort of cumulative proof of my own, personal notability. -The Gnome (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Why would we want non-biographical sources for a biography of a living person? I see; if you add them all together ("all about her work as a politician. None are "biographies" of her but the total adds up..."), they equal biographical coverage. If we omit the biographical information we absolutely have a resume. There is already a "LinkedIn Profile" in the sources so an encyclopedia resume along with LinkedIn is all that is needed for a future job application. NPOL gives the presumption of notability not a guarantee. Otr500 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, LinkedIn is not, on its own, acceptable as a source in Wikipedia, per WP:LINKEDIN, WP:SPS. -The Gnome (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2022 (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.