Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Cameron (Galway)

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...after reading into the discussion, it seems that there is a general consensus that WP:POLITICIAN #1 does not apply for City Councillors in Ireland. In addition, there is also a consensus that he does not meet the general biography notability standards, and so I am closing this AfD as delete. NW (Talk) 15:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Cameron (Galway)[edit]

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

Non-notable local councillor, fails WP:POLITICIAN. The only references are one article in his local free newspaper and his page on his party's website. I PRODed the article on 9 December, but the prod was contested with an explanation on the article's talk page which rather seems to miss the point: "I'm removing deletion references as the article is as sparse as possible without leaving out his significant details". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Related discussion:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Galway Advertiser --Mkativerata (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for that. I've posted a few links there so that editors can see for themselves how the Galway Advertiser constructs a story. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes WP:POLITICIAN, as a councillor on Galway City Council is a first-level sub-national political office. I'm quite comfortable with this outcome in this case as I think he would pass WP:GNG as well due to the extent to which he is covered in national media (in addition to merely local media such as the Advertiser). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkativerata (talk • contribs) 21:57, 21 December 2009
- Reply. I will comment below on that interpretation of WP:POLITICIAN, but the google link you provide consists overwhelmingly of local news media: Galway Bay FM, and the freesheet Galway Advertiser. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply In any event, national coverage is not a requirement of [{WP:GNG]] or WP:POLITICIAN. Imposing such a test is absurd for the reasons given in my comment below. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll try again. You referred above to "the extent to which he is covered in national media". Examples, please, with links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Times UK, Irish Times, Times UK again, Irish Independent. But it's not important - nowhere in WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN is national coverage is required. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        What is significant is that WP:GNG requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, and if the fresheet Galway advertiser is a reliable source, we are both fruitflies from the planet zog.
        Now let's look at those refs:
        Times UK dead link, no idea what's in it, may just be a passing mention, or ,maybe not, but no evidence of substantail coveraage
        
        Irish Times -- one mention of him in the last sentence an article about the local elections. He is not " the subject of" the article, per per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic_criteria
        
        Times UK again -- another dead link
        
        Irish Independent -- he gets mentioned in the 21st paragraph, as the fifth and last councillor named there, and the one with the least coverage. So again he is not "the subject of" the article per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic_criteria, he's just a passing mention in it ... so we are left with precisely nothing as evidence of Cameron being the the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        1 and 3 are not dead links for me; they're the stronger ones too. I'm still waiting for you to justify your need for national coverage. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        1 and 3 are dead-as-a-dodo for me, but I did manage to gewt their headlines from google: "Green mayor desperate for a late lifeline in Galway poll and Caterpillar protest goes up a gear ... so Billy Cameron is not actually the subject of either story.
        As to the need for national coverage, do I have to put the qoute from Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic_criteria is big bold print for you? It requires the person to be the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent etc. None of the local media cited have any of the characteristics of WP:RS -- just read WP:RS and explain how an under-resourced free paper with a journalistic staff of one or two people (which is all those free papers have) meets the characteristics set out there.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        On what basis are the size and cost of the publication automatic indicators of reliability? Actually read the articles. They appear to be written to reasonable journalistic standards and are therefore reliable. The newspaper has a circulation of 70,000: hardly tin-pot local news. Notability is not to be judged by a Washington Post test. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Mkativerata, do us all a favour and just read WP:RS. Like actually read it. Then come back and provide some references for local free newspapers having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Plainly I'm not going to rise to the bait of trying to prove that this organisation has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You're selectively quoting from WP:RS and applying the same wikilawyering (by requiring, as a threshold to inclusion, am affirmative demonstration that the sources supporting notability have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) of which you erroneously accused me of applying to WP:POLITICIAN (ie implying it conferred automatic notability). And as for your condescending directive to read WP:RS, may I point out that the only reason we are here in the first place is because you failed to read WP:POLITICIAN (see the opening sentence of your nomination). --Mkativerata (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Mkativerata, if you think that notability would be conferred by any number of mentions in unreliable sources, then I can't help you. But there is no synthesis or originality or wikilawyering in pointing out that it is a fundamental pillar of wikipedia that it is based on reliable secondary sources, or that those are sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If any of this surprises you or appears to be nit-picking taken out of context, then take it to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and ask for input on whether the Galway Advertiser fits the bill.
        And yes, I was taken by surprise to find a change to WP:POLITICIAN which clearly had unintended effects for those who read it too literally ... but then I was even more surprised to find your determined refusal to apply commonsense and spot that your interpretation of the guideline it would have the bizarre result of conferring automatic notability on a member of Galway City Council, but not on a New York City Councillor, nor on Galway's mayor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        For the last time, I don't know where you intepret anything I've said as refusing to apply common sense over WP:POLITICIAN. The correct interpretation of WP:POLITICIAN does lead to absurd results (except that the Galway Mayor would also pass it by passing criteria 1 even if not passing criteria 2) and for that reason we have WP:GNG. You are erecting a straw man. I have listed the matter on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard as you have suggested (I don't pretend to make any strong arguments that the source is notable, only to question your outright dismissal of it).--Mkativerata (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I can read both Times articles. The first says in para 5,"Billy Cameron, of Labour, who was revealed last week to be claiming mileage for a car driven by his brother, was on 20.7% and looked likely to top the city-centre poll." The second is slightly better, referring to "Billy Cameron, a Galway city councillor behind the campaign." However, "behind the campaign" seems pretty notional given that he says, "We have had the support of four Labour councillors and one Green, and I assume Sinn Fein, and I would hope to persuade more." Five Councillors is hardly a significant campaign. Anyway, consensus seems clear. MikeHobday (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN as election to a local council alone is not enough. The subject must be notable not locally but nationally and this person has no significant national coverage. Snappy (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Have you considered criteria 1 of WP:POLITICIAN? This council is a first-level sub-national political office. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. National coverage is an absurd requirement that you seem to be reading into both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Would a state senator from Utah have national coverage? Of course not. This guy has significant coverage at his sub-national level confirming that he is notable as a first-level sub-national politician. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware of this change to WP:POLITICIAN until you mentioned it here, and I found the edit in which the change was made. It was obviously intended as a clarification, but it has unintended consequences for Ireland. The overwhelming majority of the population of Ireland has only one sub-national level of elected government, viz. the city or county councils, so in most of Ireland the phrase "first-level sub-national political office" actually means the same things "as lowest-level political office". The fact that this was unintended is illustrated by point 2, which makes local mayors notable only if they "have received significant press coverage". taken together, this would mean that a local coucillor in Galway was automatically notable, unless she was elected as mayor ... which is a nonsense.
  I'll open a discussion at WT:BIO to have this fixed, but in the meantime we should remember that WP:BIO is a guideline not a piece of statute law, and that as it says at the top of each guideline page, a guideline is "best treated with common sense". In this case common sense means understanding that Ireland is a much smaller country than the USA, and has many fewer layers of govt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fully appreciate that WP:POLITICIAN is not statute law, and never implied it was. Nonetheless, in my view, the member of a first-level sub-national assembly that governs 70,000+ people is notable. Super-imposing requirements such as "national press coverage" is unwarranted. You and the other contributors to this debate seem distracted by the label of the council as a "Council". Look beyond the label to what the organisation does and the scope of its powers and coverage - clearly its legislative members are notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mkativerta, you are now getting funny. Snappy is Irish, and I am Irish. I used to live in Galway. Now, will you please give us the shock of our lives by explaining exactly what are those "legislative powers" vested in members of Galway City Council, and explain what Act of the Oireachtas conferred those powers? Because so far as I am aware their "legislative" powers amount to a big round zero. (The closest they get to it is in planning, where they can set a County Development Plan, subject to approval by the Minister).
      An Irish City or County Council has much much less power than an American City or County Council, and those are clearly 2nd-tier sub-national units. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - My reference to law-making powers is perhaps inaccurate. As far as I can tell, the Local Government Act 2001 confers policy and plan making powers for local authorities (essentially, supervisory laws) and authorities have further powers to make by-laws (ie legislation). I think law-making is a fair shorthand to describe this structure. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Bye-laws are not legislation: they are local rules of very limited scope, which may be applied to a limite range of issues, and are dsubject to overturning by "the appropriate Minister" if he "considers that a bye-law or any provision of it is objectionable" (section 199(8)(a) of the 2001 Act). Can you give me any other example of "law-making" where a "law" which has already been passed can be struck out (with no right of appeal or democratic override) because one man considers it "objectionable"? A bye-law is a form of local regulation, not of legislation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd contend that the availability of a power to over-ride a law does not reduce the notability of the body that passes the law (or its members) unless it is frequently utilised. Can you provide any evidence to suggest that the powers of Irish county councils are genuinely subject to the whim of the Minister other than in very exceptional cases? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Mkativerata, you are making this up as you go along.
        First you misread WP:POLITICIAN by reading only part 1 and not part 2, and thereby confuse an Irish local government council with a US state Govt (as if the Mayor of Galway was on a par with the Governor of California). Then you invent the idea that an Irish City Council has "legislative powers", and when that try fails too you now want me to give you an entire history of ministerial use of powers to overturn by-laws. Quite apart from the fact that such a power of itself shapes the bye-laws which are proposed (because in practice neither side has an interest in a public showdown), I'm not going to waste more of my time trying to deal with the consequences of your fundamental lack of knowledge and understanding of the exceptionally limited powers of Local Government in Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite passing WP:POLITICIAN, because WP:POLITICIAN surely did not intend such non notable figures to pass the test. MikeHobday (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To assert that WP:POLITICIAN "surely did not intend" for a person who can pass laws that affect around 70,000 people to be notable is a big call. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply See my comment above about interpreting WP:POLITICIAN. But here you make another fundamental mistake: local councillors in Ireland have no powers to pass laws. They don't even have any significant powers to raise revenue (90% of their money comes from central govt), and they don't even have much power to run the councils, because most of the authority is vested in the County Manager or City Manager).
    Point 1 of WP:POLITICIAN makes sense in the United States, where the first-level sub-national authority is the states. But the average population of a US state is 6 million people, which is more than the entire population of the Republic of Ireland, whose 4.5 million people have 34 county and city councils. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article doesn't assert notability and the sourcing is abysmal. If he was really notable, there would be more to say about him as well as rock-solid sourcing to back it up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Its quite clear that WP:Politician is written with the US in mind and does not work properly for other countries. Apart from the local councillors discussed at length above, there is also the issue of Mayors. Because in the US, they are directly elected for a term of several years and have substantial powers and budgets, they are mostly notable. However, this criteria, cannot be applied to Ireland, as the Mayors of Dublin, Limerick, Cork and Galway are not directly elected; the council picks one of its members to serve for 1 calendar year (buggins turn) and the Mayor has no more power than any other councillor. They just get a fancy chain and get to open various functions and envelopes. Clearly, a discussion needs to take place about WP:Politician on how it can be improved to allow for different forms of local government in different jurisdictions. Btw, national coverage in Ireland is not "an absurd requirement". Ireland is a small country with only 4 million people. If you can't get national coverage in Ireland then you are definitely a total non notable non entity! Billy Cameron has no significant national coverage, just mentioned in passing a few times, no articles where he is the subject at all. Comparisons to a Utah State Senator getting national coverage in the US is skewed. To be accurate, compare the US to the EU, then Utah to Ireland, then Galway to St. George, Utah. Now, are the members of the St. George city council in Utah notable enough to get an article on wikipedia? Snappy (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I think the point on the deficiencies of WP:POLITICIAN is entirely valid. The fact is that Mr Cameron passes WP:POLITICIAN in its present form, which means he's generally notable. But it could hardly be supportable that a member of one of the 22 Councils of Kirabati, population 98,000, is notable, yet they too would seem to pass WP:POLITICIAN. In such cases, we have to apply WP:GNG. I happen to think Mr Cameron passes WP:GNG but concede its an arguable point. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, Cameron does not pass WP:POLITICIAN, unless you ignore the contradiction between points 1 and 2. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where is the contradiction? They are alternative criteria that have a small degree of overlap. If you satisfy 1, it doesn't matter that you might also be covered by 2 but haven't received "significant press coverage". --Mkativerata (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mkativerata, I'll try one last time to explain it to you. If point 1 is interpreted as you do, then point 2 is useless in Ireland, because the "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city" already have automatic notability according to your view on point 1, so point 2's test of significant coverage need never be applied to them. But since it appears that you really really really really truly want to believe that the intention of the guidelines is to confer automatic notability on a Galway City Councillor but not on a New York City Councillor, then nothing anyone else says is going to disrupt that view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You can talk about what you believe is the "true intention" and the implications for WP:POLITICIAN in Ireland as much as you like (and I don't necessarily disagree with what you say are the problems with WP:POLITICIAN in those respects), but that doesn't change what WP:POLITICIAN actually says and that you misread its text by assuming that a person who doesn't pass criterion 2 fails despite passing criterion 1. At least we are in agreement that it probably doesn't matter so much because it is subject to WP:GNG as an overriding requirement. An additional point: you seem to be saying that county councils are the lowest level of government in Ireland. This does not appear to me to be necessarily the case - the lowest level would seem to be town councils established under s 185 of the Local Government Act. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        What WP:POLITICIAN actually says, in a nice prominent block at the top, is what I pointed out before: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense". You have just spent hours arguing for an interpretation which defies common sense , viz. one that confers automatic notability on Galway city councillors, but not those in NY, and that's all because you focused on a literal interpretation rather than applying the overriding common sense requirement.
        And no, I am not saying that county councils are the lowest level of govt in Ireland; town councils are.
        Nor am I saying that point 2 overrides point 1, or failing point 2 means failing point 1; I really don;t know how you could twist my words that way. As above: if point 1 is interpreted as you do, then point 2 is useless in Ireland, because the "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city" already have automatic notability according to your view on point 1, so point 2's test of significant coverage need never be applied to them. What on earth would be the point of saying that city council members might be notable if they had already been defined as automatically notable? That's what the common sense requirement at the top matters. --04:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
        Now you are just plain misrepresenting me. WP:POLITICIAN has a clear operation, but never have I said it should be applied rigidly. Of course it must be applied with commonsense and of course it is subject to WP:GNG particularly when, I agree, it could lead to absurd results. All I've done is (a) pointed out that you were wrong to say he failed WP:POLITICIAN, and (b) argue that he passes it. But in any case, this argument over WP:POLITICIAN is pointless and should end here because we both appear to agree that the real question is whether Cameron is notable per WP:GNG, supported by verifiable sources. I say he is (member of the governing assembly of a town of 70,000 people, at the first level of sub-national government, being the subject of some national coverage and significant local coverage); you say he isn't (and have an arguable case for that position). --Mkativerata (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You're still confused. Despite apparently agreeing with me about WP:POLITICIAN being broken, you're back on the "first level of sub-national government" thing again, which is just whitewash on the reality of "city councillor in a small city".
        If the test you are applying is notability per WP:GNG, then his membership of any council forms no part of the test. Even if he was supreme-galactic-emperor-for-all-time it would make not a whit of difference to applying GNG. Take a rest, at least until you have read WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm no longer going to respond to suggestions that I haven't read things. Its just playing the man not the ball and it has gone on long enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Regardless of WP:Politician, Billy Cameron still fails WP:GNG, which states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. I can find no articles from national media where he is the subject, or mentioned in detail, only passing references. While the allegation that he claimed expenses for a car while not owning one is amusing, it doesn't form the basis of an article. User:Mkativerata keeps stating the Cameron passes WP:GNG but fails to provide sources with significant detailed coverage to support this. Snappy (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Where in the sentence you italicised does it say national media? I'm happy to accept a reasoned position that this particular local media is not reliable (being discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Galway Advertiser), but not (a) a blanket position that local media is not reliable, or that (b) significant coverage in local media is not sufficient for WP:GNG. Both (a) and (b) are reading requirements into WP:RS and WP:GNG that are not there. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So, you couldn't find any national media sources then. All local councillors by virtue of the fact that they are members of a council will receive alot of coverage in local media, therefore it is pointless and useless to use local media to try and determine notability. Only if a local councillor receives coverage in the Irish national media would they be truly notable. It's common sense. Looking at local media, we get this king of thing [1] and [2], why does this (and similar kinds of articles) make him notable? I'm trying to get to the bottom of your argument, what exactly has Billy Cameron said or done in his life that makes notable enough for a wikipedia article? I have looked and cannot find anything. If you have more information about him, that would enable him to meet notability criteria, please post it here. Snappy (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Mkativerata accuses Snappy of "reading requirements into WP:RS and WP:GNG that are not there". Repeated to requests to Mkativerata to actually read WP:RS don't seem to have had any effect, so here's the relevant quote: "How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." The many examples of the Galway Advertiser simply reprinting press releases from Billy and others do not suggest a publication which is putting a lot of resources into fact-checking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You misread again. My problem with Snappy is his obsession with "national coverage" which is plainly not supported by WP:RS. Your particular criticisms of the Galway Advertiser are a different matter entirely: they are more valid and are being properly discussed at the RS:Noticeboard. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I see you haven't my simple question about what Billy Cameron has said or done in his life to get a Wikipedia article? Any chance of providing any examples? Snappy (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        A simple question. But an irrelevant one. The test for notability under WP:GNG is the extent and nature of coverage the subject has received; it is not a subjective test of what we think he has done or achieved. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So you can't provide a single example of anything he's said or done to provide notability. You are asserting that he meets GNG, because of a few passing references in some articles, and there is notable. That is incredible! This individual fails the recently amended WP:Politician and in no way, shape or form even comes close to meeting WP:GNG. To sum up, Mkativerata assets that in their opinion, Billy Cameron meets GNG, is therefore notable but can't provide a single example or anything that Camerson has ever said or done in his entire life that would make him notable. What an person does or achieves in their life is what makes them notable, it is the most relevant thing to this debate. WP:BIO says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Cameron fails this because he has not been the subject of any articles, merely some passing mentions. Since you can't provide any example of anything he has done to backup your assertion of notability, can you at least provide a reference from a reliable source where Billy Cameron is the subject of an article. Snappy (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Still waiting for any examples of notability? Snappy (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not answering an irrelevant question. The coverage is the notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Amazing, you can't give a single example of what he has done that makes him notable, truly amazing! The only coverage in a national newspaper is one of claiming expenses for a car while not owning a car. As BHG has already pointed, local media sources are suspect due to their unreliability. This means he comes under WP:1E, so clearly not notable at all. Your argument is a stupid, circular one, saying because he has received coverage he is notable and he is notable because he has gotten coverage. None of the sources you provided are adequate, they are not coverage. Can you provide better sources that provide coverage? Snappy (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Your entire argument is thus based on the "suspect reliabilty" of the (many) local sources. I suggest you refer to the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Galway Advertiser where there don't seem to be many editors accepting that assumption. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well lets assume that local sources are reliable in this case, can you provide any links, sites, references, information from these or other sources that would indicate notability for Billy Cameron? Snappy (talk)
        It's the fact of the coverage that confers notability, not a subjective test about whether what we think he has done is notable. In this case, the coverage of Cameron is extensive and more than gets him across the line. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You seem to think that because he has a few mentions in national and a few more in local sources he is automatically notable. Nothing in that link is of interest. You are just plain wrong. If that were true, I would have to create an article for each of the 1,627 local councillors in Ireland. When Billy Cameron's article is deleted very soon, I hope you will see the error of your ways. You seem to be confused, just because a local councillor gets an article in the local newpaper (reliable or not), stating for example that the people of East Galway have a new bingo hall, doesn't actually make him notable. It's just local coverage of local issues which is of no interest to anyone outside the locality. Please learn the difference. Snappy (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable local councillor, poorly sourced to an unreliable source. No hint of notability or anything we could make a worthwhile article out of. Valenciano (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He sounds much too nice to be a politician.86.46.246.63 (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 109.76.8.181 (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above.Red Hurley (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Red Hurley. --MisterWiki talk contribs 13:45, 29 December 2009 (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.