Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Jolly (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Jolly (politician)[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)

Recently created through AfC, but as I noted in the comments (and as you can see on the talk page) this article fails WP:GNG. Most of the coverage on him is about him in an electoral context or as leader of a very minor political party and only covers him indirectly and he's never held an office which comes close to passing WP:NPOL, as the Yarra City Council is one of dozens in Melbourne. My comment on the talk page is reproduced here:

This is a difficult one. Per WP:THREE, which are the best sources currently in the article? [1] covers him as an unelected candidate, same with this [2]. [3] is focused on him, this [4] is from an interview in electrical trade union news, and [5] is routine. I'm not sure I'd vote to keep this at AfD, probably would vote to merge what is relevant into the Vic Socialists article.

SportingFlyer talk 07:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of those edge cases. No clear cut meeting of a specific notablity guideline but a lot of coverage and sources. As I said on the draft this is not a page I would seek deletion on. We have a lot of bios that are a lot more weakly sourced than this one where the subject is far less notable. Legacypac (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Why weren't you willing to move it into mainspace yourself? (The tone on that is a bit harsh, I'm just curious.) As I've said, just because there's coverage doesn't mean the article passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 07:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer talk 07:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer talk 07:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he passes WP:NPOL but he has coverage for other things so maybe passes GNG.. As I said it is an edge case and I prefer to accept only pages I'm confident will pass AfD. I've never seen so many reviewers equivocate over accepting or rejecting a page so I figured the creator was entitled to give it a chance in mainspace. Here we are. Legacypac (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the response, thanks. SportingFlyer talk 07:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a list of activists from Melbourne I brought up in the comments which all have Wikipedia articles. He is most prolifically an activist, but also a local councillor and perennial candidate for state government. Passes notability on more than being a politician, the article shows there is more than enough to write about him biographically. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So that's WP:GNG. The list was Mick Armstrong, William Barak, Julian Burnside, Helen Caldicott, Albert Langer, Stephen Mayne, Tom O'Lincoln, Van Thanh Rudd, B. A. Santamaria, Joseph Toscano and Les Twentyman. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it may pass WP:POLOUTCOMES on its own. Although local councillors are not notable on their own, they are if they are a significant spokesperson for a political issue and significant gain press coverage. He has been a prominent public figure for socialism and the 'Change the Date' (an Australian Indigenous rights issue) campaign. These have been covered by national newspapers such as The Australian, the ABC, and The Age, as well as international media such as the Jacobin. However as others have pointed out, there are several other factors such as being a prominent activist and having widespread sourcing that would make it supported by WP:GNG. Catiline52 (talk) 08:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jolly has had significant prominence within not just the Australian, but international, left. Although his current status as a councillor may not be notable enough on its own, there is certainly a large depth of biographic information about him. Given that he has been covered in various media as others point out, the article should be kept, especially considering the lack of information available on other persons with ostensibly greater notability. LeoC12 (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:BIO. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable beyond his local council responsibilities for activism and leadership of political parties. -- Longhair\^talk 12:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just wanted to note that none of the keep !votes so far have discussed the actual sources, and he clearly does not pass any SNGs. SportingFlyer talk 17:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the AfD didn't mention anything about the sourcing being inadequate. I assumed you thought the sources of the article were fine and that the issue was about notability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources of the article were fine, I wouldn't have gone through them at AfC or made a WP:GNG argument above at AfD (not entirely sure which one you mean.) SportingFlyer talk 04:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's true that neither being a smalltown city councillor nor being an unsuccessful election candidate are WP:NPOL-passing notability claims, and people are not automatically deemed to pass GNG in lieu of NPOL just because some local media coverage exists of them in those contexts — but being the leader of a registered political party at the state level, even a minor one, most certainly can be a valid claim of notability if it's well-sourced. The test for the notability of a political party leader is not the subjective majorness or minorness of the party — regardless of party size, it's a matter of whether or not they have received enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG for being a party leader. I'll grant that "party leader" isn't written directly into NPOL, but that's not because it's an inherent NPOL fail in all cases — it's because the question of whether a party leader is notable or not comes down to the quality of the sources. It's not an automatic notability freebie for all party leaders, no, but it's not an automatic notability fail either — it's contingent on the quality of the sourcing, and is a valid notability claim if there is enough sourcing to pass GNG.
It's true that a lot more AFC reviewers equivocated on whether to accept or reject this one than usual — I was one of them, and my comment was that too much of the sourcing at the time was sitting on the non-notable aspects of his career but a path to notability existed if the sourcing about his political party leadership could be beefed up enough. I'm still not completely sold that all of these sources are what I had in mind, but there are some sources that are striding in the right direction from where it was the first time I looked at it.
But even if he is deemed non-notable when all is said and done, his name should still be retained as a redirect to the party's article rather than simply deleted — but keeping or deleting this isn't a question of whether the party he leads is major or minor, it's a question of whether there's enough sourcing to get him over GNG for leading a party or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the party is a bit of a red herring here: it's possibly what he's most well known for right now, being that the party was formed to contest an election held two weeks ago, but he's a prominent activist with a history (and mainstream media coverage of said history) going back to the 1980s. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as a political spokesperson (per Catiline52) and as a party leader. Sourcing is weaker than what may be preferred, but there does appear to be sufficient sourcing to develop a article that is more than "John Doe served on the city council." --Enos733 (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jolly is a long-time activist with a very high profile for someone who has only held local office - he's a very rare case where I'd vote to keep one. I was surprised at how crap the Google results for him were, but the deeper archive of newspapers.com demonstrates that he definitely passes GNG: he's received significant media coverage in a whole bunch of contexts over many years prior to his statewide campaign - perhaps most prominently (but definitely not limited to) his role as the leader of the early 1990s Richmond Secondary College occupation, which was probably notable enough for its own article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, I didn't know there was a site for that. I'll try to uncover more info for the page soon. Catiline52 (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you're talking about newspapers.com, it's very useful for these kinds of things - you can get free access through the Wikipedia Library - see Wikipedia:Newspapers.com. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2018 (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.