Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pádraig Conneely
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. Sandstein 05:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pádraig Conneely[edit]
- Pádraig Conneely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person. Being mayor of an Irish city is a largely ceremonial post, held by a councillor for a one-year term. It does not make Conneely notable. I'd argue is places him outside the scope of WP:POLITICIAN. Lincolnite (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See related Declan McDonnell
- So he does meet the criteria as laid out at WP:POLITICIAN, but mayors of Irish cities are somehow an exception? RashersTierney (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right that my original rationale was confusingly worded; I've amended it in light of your comments. The question is whether the term "mayor" in WP:POLITICIAN is intended to encompass ceremonial mayors who have little (if any) executive power. Based on the remainder of WP:POLITICIAN, I would have thought that it clearly doesn't. Ceremonial mayors are not limited to Ireland, incidentally. They're common in the UK and in some US states also (many medium-sized California cities, for example, operate on the city manager model and rotate the mayoralty among councilmembers on an annual basis). --Lincolnite (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Irish Presidency is mainly ceremonial in nature, as was the office of Governor-General of the Irish Free State. The fact that an office is mainly ceremonial does not preclude it from carrying formal status. Perhaps the issue should be teased out at the relevant guideline. RashersTierney (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But the holders of those offices are undoubtedly "politicians [...] who have held [...] national [...] office" and thus meet the first prong of WP:POLITICIAN. Ceremonial mayors are not. --Lincolnite (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It still doesn't address the issue of whether some city mayors should be considered notable and others not. This really should be addressed at the guideline, if you feel such a distinction must be made. RashersTierney (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the guidelines make very clear that some city mayors should be considered notable and others not. Being a mayor doesn't confer notability per WP:POLITICIAN. The second prong of WP:P says the following are notable: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion." The words "generally speaking" clearly don't imply that a mayor of a regionally important city is automatically notable. In summary, some city mayors are notable (i.e. those that are "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage") and some are not (i.e. those that haven't). --Lincolnite (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your rationale for deletion was that this particular city mayor falls outside the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. As that guideline is presently worded, he doesn't. RashersTierney (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't he? Unless the case is made that he's a "[m]ajor local political figures who [has] received significant press coverage", then I'm afraid he does fall outside WP:POLITICIAN. --Lincolnite (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your rationale for deletion was that this particular city mayor falls outside the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. As that guideline is presently worded, he doesn't. RashersTierney (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the guidelines make very clear that some city mayors should be considered notable and others not. Being a mayor doesn't confer notability per WP:POLITICIAN. The second prong of WP:P says the following are notable: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion." The words "generally speaking" clearly don't imply that a mayor of a regionally important city is automatically notable. In summary, some city mayors are notable (i.e. those that are "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage") and some are not (i.e. those that haven't). --Lincolnite (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It still doesn't address the issue of whether some city mayors should be considered notable and others not. This really should be addressed at the guideline, if you feel such a distinction must be made. RashersTierney (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But the holders of those offices are undoubtedly "politicians [...] who have held [...] national [...] office" and thus meet the first prong of WP:POLITICIAN. Ceremonial mayors are not. --Lincolnite (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Irish Presidency is mainly ceremonial in nature, as was the office of Governor-General of the Irish Free State. The fact that an office is mainly ceremonial does not preclude it from carrying formal status. Perhaps the issue should be teased out at the relevant guideline. RashersTierney (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right that my original rationale was confusingly worded; I've amended it in light of your comments. The question is whether the term "mayor" in WP:POLITICIAN is intended to encompass ceremonial mayors who have little (if any) executive power. Based on the remainder of WP:POLITICIAN, I would have thought that it clearly doesn't. Ceremonial mayors are not limited to Ireland, incidentally. They're common in the UK and in some US states also (many medium-sized California cities, for example, operate on the city manager model and rotate the mayoralty among councilmembers on an annual basis). --Lincolnite (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It seems like the source is good enough for me. I don't see how Irish mayors are an exemption from WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: can you explain how this man meets WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG? As I pointed out in the discussion above, WP:POLITICIAN doesn't automatically make any big city mayor notable, whether Irish or not. The reference to mayors is in the context of: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion." There's clearly no suggestion that a mayor is automatically notable... --Lincolnite (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being Queen of England is also a "largely ceremonial post" that is why we don't have that as a Wikipedia rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to be repetitive, but can you explain how this man meets WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG? Are you arguing he's a "Major local political figures who ha[s] received significant press coverage"? --Lincolnite (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being Queen of England is also a "largely ceremonial post" that is why we don't have that as a Wikipedia rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: can you explain how this man meets WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG? As I pointed out in the discussion above, WP:POLITICIAN doesn't automatically make any big city mayor notable, whether Irish or not. The reference to mayors is in the context of: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion." There's clearly no suggestion that a mayor is automatically notable... --Lincolnite (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - because our mayors are not democratically elected as mayors but merely appointed by their fellow councillors for a year, effectively as a chairperson of the council. They have no special executive powers. Local councillors are not important enough for wikipedia.Red Hurley (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Hurley. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just like at the article for Declan McDonnell, the sources provided here are verifiable and reliable and meet the notability standard, independent of the ceremonial nature of the position. Alansohn (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2011 (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.