Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trent Zimmerman

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. Deor (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Zimmerman[edit]

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

No notability here. Local councillor and mildly senior party official. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I take it that 'working in' the Parliament doesn't mean 'elected to'. If it does, that's a pass at WP:POLITICIAN. If it doesn't, it's a fail. Peridon (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. If his highest elected position is local councillor that doesn't cut it. LibStar (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Makes no claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL, and with three of the four sources being primary ones there's no WP:GNG claim to be had here either. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he gets elected to an office that would get him over NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Vice-President of the Liberal Party in NSW he is notable.Castlemate (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No he's not. Wikipedia has no articles on party vice-presidents who weren't subsequently elected to some more significant office. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is this from Crikey. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- and this from the Sydney Morning Herald
  - and then there is this from the Daily Telegraph
    - not forgetting this from The Guardian Castlemate (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmerman as frickeg says below is not the subject of these articles, thus don't establish notability for him. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Crikey source cited above by Duffbeerforme is the only source of any significance here, and I just don't think it's enough to pass WP:GNG (the ones cited after it are absurd to use as justification, since none are significant coverage - they're all just "acting CEO Trent Zimmerman said on behalf of the company", which is not significant). Frickeg (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- if you read this again you will find that Zimmerman and the organisation that he currently leads is the core of the article in the Sydney Morning Herald and it includes his photograph. Could editors show more respect in these discussions: "no he's not" and "absurd" are the attitudes reducing editors of this wiki to a male rump of bullies. Please be civil. Castlemate (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article cites him as the spokesman and "acting CEO". That doesn't say significant coverage to me; opinions, of course, may differ, but as LibStar says above, the company is the subject, not him. It does say "his company" at one point, but it's clear they mean "the company to which he belongs" rather than "the company which he leads". I really do not think "absurd" and "no he's not" are at all uncivil, merely signs of robust discussion, and I take great exception to being referred to as a bully. In return, you might like to assume good faith. Frickeg (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Castlemate, I can find lots of articles of a police spokesperson appearing in a media reporting on crimes, does that make the spokesperson notable, he gets lots of coverage? no. many of the articles of Zimmerman say nothing about his education, achievements, early life. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tourism & Transport Forum is in no way similar to the police force. It is a national, member-funded organisation representing Australian CEOs and advocating the public policy interests of over 200 corporations and institutions representing the tourism, transport, aviation & investment sectors. As such it's spokesperson is very different to a police spokesperson reporting a crime. Zimmerman is reporting a position adopted by the organisations TTF represents. Given his political activities at party level and on a major Sydney council I believe his background is well worth noting. Google Trent Zimmerman TTF and there are many pages of articles but his different roles in public life aren't connected until you read a wikipedia bio that connects the dots. Thank you for at least developing a robust conversation. Castlemate (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

being a local councillor does not meet WP:NPOL. The tourism and transport forum may indeed be notable but it does not follow that a "senior" person like Zimmerman is notable. the coverage you found demonstrating a lack of coverage of him as the subject joins the dots to demonstrate that Zimmerman is not notable on many counts. LibStar (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find a nice way to say this, but Castlemate: you just don't understand Wikipedia's notability policies. His role at the Tourism & Transport Forum doesn't come within cooee of notability, nor would anyone else holding a similar role elsewhere unless they'd done something else more notable or achieved a vastly higher level of attention and significance than he has. The same with the local council. Anyone else at this low level of significance is going to wind up with their article deleted in pretty short order, and that Zimmerman's lasted as long as it did is largely because no one noticed it until now. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Castlemate, nobody in any role whatsoever gets an automatic notability freebie on Wikipedia just because you assert the importance of the role. Notability on here is a question of whether the person themselves is the subject of a meaningful volume of coverage in reliable sources — if that coverage isn't there, then they don't qualify for an article no matter how important any individual editor believes the role to be in principle. They can't just have their name dropped into an article about something else, either — they have to be the subject of the coverage. So the fact that you can find a handful of news articles in which he happens to be named as a quote provider about a political issue doesn't cut it — because Zimmerman himself isn't what those news articles are about. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see Vice-President of a state party branch as being automatically notable. Zimmerman could be notable if there were more sources about him, and the Crikey one is a decent start, but I don't see the depth of coverage for us to be able to write a quality, neutral biography on him. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Add this to Crikey. Castlemate (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe this advances his cause. Castlemate (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

being junior vice president of young liberals doesn't advance notability. Obviously Zimmerman has had long aspirations to be a MP, but it's never happened . LibStar (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find any basis for notability here. His only elective office is local councillor. He has held staff positions in various levels of government and of organizations. He gets mentioned in an occasional story about one of those organizations. Significant coverage ABOUT him is lacking. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2015 (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.