Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel de Gruchy

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel de Gruchy[edit]

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

This is not a notable individual. Most of the sources which turn up on a news search are general coverage of other events where he appears as a comment, or a passing mention. There is also general coverage of the 2017 general election , where he gets a balance mention. Neither are any good for demonstrating notability. The positions held in trades union, do not elevate him to being notable purely on the ground of holding the position. He stood for parliament, and lost, again being a candidate does not confer notability. This article fails to reach the required standard for demonstrating the individual is notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sport and politics (talk • contribs)

keep being a prominent member of the second largest teacher's union in the country is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Egaoblai: Stating a prominent member of the second largest teacher's union in the country is notable is nothing more than an opinion, please demonstrate this to be fact. Simply saying an individual is notable or a post is notable does not make it so. It must meet WP:N and be demonstrated to be such. There a hundreds of thousands of trades union world wide, what makes this post special? The posts held by this individual do no generate wide notability, simply because they do. The comment is nothing more than a keep !vote Sport and politics (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it may well be unfair but while we do often grant business leaders a certain level an assumption of notability, per WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME, there seems to be no such policy towards labour leaders. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is and what isn't notable is normally always an opinion, I cannot demonstrate the notability of this article to be a fact just as you cannot demonstrate the non notability of this article to be a fact either. However, when it comes to notability, I'm pretty sure that we can find a CONSENSUS that holding prominent positions in large national trade unions is a sign of notability. As a rule of thumb, would we see that someone who was prominent in a equally sized business be notable? Better yet, the encyclopedia includes sports people for notability simply for having played one professional game. By those standards, a person who has been a member of a trade union would be notable. But this person isn't just a member of a trade union, but a prominent leader of an important one. Clearly they are notable according to these standards and the idea that they are not represents a bias against trade unions.Egaoblai (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is demonstrated through general source coverage where the subject of the article is the subject of the source. Notability is sot a passing reference or general coverage of another event. Some individual categories have their own criteria see WP:ATHLETE. Notability for labour officials as a separate criteria does not exist. It is down to editors to demonstrate the notability of individuals, by the general standard in this case, if they believe they are notable for an article on Wikipedia. If notability can not be asserted, or demonstrated, then the subject mater fails. It is not opinion to state that sources have not demonstrated the standard required for inclusion of Wikipedia. The sources available for this individual are scant at best, and mainly passing references. It is not opinion to state there is an issue with the notability of this individual. The individual is so far, way below the bar of inclusion. Sport and politics (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Utter drivel. Head (not just "a prominent member") of a very prominent trade union for twelve years, always in the news when he held that position (note that the BBC search only goes back to 1998, whereas he was general secretary from 1990, so there will be much more coverage than that in the media). And also President of the TUC (a post held only by leading trade unionists). Of course he's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of Necrothesp's BBC news results above. There's enough to meet GNG on that basis alone, which as Necrothesp points out, isn't a comprehensive list, pre-98. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp's comments.Dalliance (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If such sources do exist then improve the article, the searches carried out indicate that the coverage is incidental, or more coverage of the general election. Not specifically regarding the notability of the individual. Sport and politics (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Simply going of course he is notable. Is not enough. Demonstrate it. Add sources, add references. DO something other than stating he is therefore he is. Sport and politics (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lets go through some of these sources: The following are a random selection please feel free to show more:

From this source all that is regarding de Gruchy is the following end of article quite - His counterpart at the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, Nigel de Gruchy, said Mr Tomlinson was "honest and courageous"
From this source all that is said about de Gruchy is - "Not for the first time, the Liberal Democrats appear to have put forward an education manifesto which would be largely supported by the majority of teachers," says Nigel de Gruchy, general secretary of the National Association of Schoolteachers Union of Women Teachers.
From this source all that is said regarding de Gruchy is - The leader of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers teachers' union, Nigel de Gruchy, said the institute's report was "spot on".
From this source all that is said regarding de Gruchy is - Nigel de Gruchy, the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women teachers said it was "more privatisation, tempered only by more central and bureaucratic control".
From source all that is said regarding de Gruchy is -Others fear that the action zones may drain teachers from elsewhere. Nigel de Gruchy, General Secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers, has said: "The facility to boost pay rates to attract the best teachers highlights the need for a substantial salary boost ... The plight of schools losing their best teachers to these education action zones seems to be ignored."

What he is doing is a routine part of a labour union job. Simply being in the news a lot does not make one notable. If this was the case every single elected union official from every trade would be notable if they appeared in a media outlet on a regular basis. The notability of the individual must be asserted, not the mere fact he gave a few soundbite quotes. Sport and politics (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Give it up. He's clearly notable. Is it not blatantly obvious that leaders of major trade unions are notable? We have articles for every footballer who appeared in a single match in a fully professional league (a routine part of their job!), every politician in a national legislature (doing a routine job!), every one-hit wonder singer, yet you're trying to argue that a very high profile public figure who appeared in the media hundreds of times (and has an entry in Who's Who, of course, and will have an obituary in all major British newspapers when he dies) is not notable. That goes against all common sense and suggests you think that WP should reduce itself to the level of a repository for pop culture. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the direct question. No. Leaders of labour unions are not notable simply for holding that post. Some tiny union with 20 people, will not confer notability on to the leader of that union. Simply being a union official does not give rise to notability. Hammering on it does it does. Fails to see the point this needs to be demonstrated. Simply shouting ever louder it does, it does, misses that this needs to be clearly demonstrated. If this individual is in the source claimed, and a reliably referenced source to the article showing this to be the case. There appears to be an attempt to apply other notability criteria to this individual. He is not a sports person or a politician of note (he lost when he stood for parliament). If there is a belief that this class of individual should be notable I suggest proposing a new notability criterion. Also avoid WP:CRYSTAL violations about what may or may not happen in the future. There may or may not get to be an obituary. That is pure speculation. If this individual is so notable, why is the article not demonstrating the notability? If this information shows the person is notable add it to the article. Sport and politics (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. If it's not obvious to you then just click on the word "books" in the search links spoon-fed by the nomination process and take your pick from the many reliable sources found with significant coverage of the subject. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being the leader of a trade union is not a guarantee that someone is notable. Being the leader of a large trade union, frankly, is - I've written articles on a large number of trade unionists, and there has been no difficulty in finding sources to meet WP:BASIC for those who were leaders of, say, any of the ten largest unions of the day. It's a mixed picture for secondary figures and leaders of smaller unions, but the quickest of searches brings up multiple, independent, reliable sources about de Gruchy, and it's just a matter of searching through to see which provide in-depth coverage. I've added some more info from about ten minutes searching; there's loads more out there. Warofdreams talk 19:40, 18 September 2017 (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.