Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lib Peck

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lib Peck[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)

Elected politician in a borough of circa 300,000 members but otherwise non-notable - may fail WP:NPOLITICIAN. See also WP:POLOUTCOMES. MB190417 (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MB190417 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MB190417 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borough councillors are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just for existing (no, not even in cities like London where the main citywide councillors do get that). She could still qualify for an article if she could be reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to make her a special case, but that's not what the sources here are showing — there are primary sources (the borough council's own website, her own LinkedIn, a corporate licensing directory), there are local blogs and local community weeklies, and there was an invalid WP:CIRCULAR reference to another Wikipedia article, but there is no evidence being shown of even one source that would even start her down the path of passing WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Peck is frequently mentioned, but I can't find anything that constitutes substantial coverage. There's a lot of mention of her in reliable sources, and I'd be open to changing my !vote if evidence of substantial coverage were to come to light. Ralbegen (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leader of a London Council who was involved in a long running and controversial planning proposal (The Garden Bridge) which recived national attention, have added links to reflect that Sam11333 (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Was this really Peck or the Council? This is covered pretty well in Garden Bridge#Lease and permission without reference to Peck at all. Also beware of WP:EVENT. MB190417 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 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.