Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Lowe

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. MBisanz ^talk 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Lowe[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)

Self promotion concern - low notability and all edits come from single user who has a conflict of interest. The photo is an "original work" taken from a political campaign site suggesting the user is involved in the campaign. FreethStreet (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being municipal borough councillors, but this is not properly referenced for the purposes of making him special: it's referenced to a mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not to notability-supporting reliable source coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note Same author has a draft article here as well--Mjs1991 (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason why this needs to be deleted: the author created that draft, submitted it to the AFC queue, and then immediately copy-pasted their work directly into articlespace without waiting for a proper AFC review. As always, draft creators do not have that prerogative, but are required to wait for the AFC process to play out — so if I had encountered this before it was already up for AFD, I would have speedied it on the grounds of being an out of process cut-paste of an unreviewed AFC draft, but since we're here, we're here. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: - while I know we'd much prefer if they didn't, I wasn't aware that submitting to AfC waived the right to submit directly to mainspace (paid editors etc notwithstanding). Doing so would warrant deletion of the draft, not the article, I'd have said. Could you point out where this is (and/or where we tell submitters about it)? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While ordinary councillors usually aren't notable, I have always maintained that council leaders of large councils are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they're the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2, sure. Most definitely not as an automatic notability freebie that entitles him to park on primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles that don't have him as their actual subject. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Procedurally, I think the article meets the notability threshold as there are external articles made by secondary sources that can verify the notability of Lowe as a regional figure. You can find external articles written by the Express and Star here. There are other articles touching on this including Birmingham Live (Birmingham Mail) here. The guideline set by Wikipedia cites "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."[1] - Additionally, I agree that the sources require being refined, though references in the article such as the Solihull Observer serve their purpose as using external sites to reference the information aforementioned in the article.[2]. I'd suggest the inclusion of notable articles and others as aforementioned in this comment to fulfil the notability requirement. Borough Councillors themselves are not deemable to be noteworthy, though in the case of Lowe, it is clear as a prospective candidate for regional political office and a former leader of a large metropolitan authority, he holds the notability criteria as comparable with similar articles on politicians of a similar level of political office and service. I hope that admins consider that there is a rough consensus to retain the page in the sense of the seen notability of the figure which is broadly in-line with comparable political figures such as Nick Forbes, I believe the article, with more consistent external sourcing and to provide guidance to edit the article to meet Wikipedia guidelines. DudleyPolitics —Preceding undated comment added 12:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every local politician everywhere can always show a smattering of local campaign coverage — our notability standards for politicians would be completely disembowelled if all somebody had to do to exempt themselves from it was show two hits in the local media, because nobody in politics (not even failed mayoral candidates in no-horse villages with populations in the single digits) could ever not show two hits in the local media. At the borough council level, what a person has to show to be considered notable enough is that they've received a depth, range and volume of coverage that marks them out as much more special than most other borough councillors — such as by nationalizing or internationalizing significantly beyond where such coverage is merely expected to always exist. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if you're not listed in NPOL, the need for a regional figure is to show non-regional coverage. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. --Enos733 (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat, local politicians need extensive coverage in widely-read publications to meet notability guidelines.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bearcat says it better than I can - fails WP:NPOL #2. Perhaps in a bit he can have an article. SportingFlyer T·C 08:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete municipal burough councilors are not default notable and nothing else adds up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 26 June 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.