Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Coleshill

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Coleshill[edit]

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

Local politician that hasn't received sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the requirements of the general notability guideline or the politician-specific guideline. Pichpich (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of two minds about this. The standard for city councillors to pass WP:NPOL, just for the fact of serving as city councillors, is that the city whose council they served on is a global city — which Glasgow technically is, but it's in the "Gamma" (i.e. lowest) rank of that set alongside places such as Valencia, San Jose, Marseille, Cincinnatti, Guadalajara, Tallinn, Vilnius, Milwaukee and Ljubljana where by and large there isn't a concerted effort actually being undertaken to actually get most of the city councillors into Wikipedia the way there is for the likes of New York City and San Francisco and London and Toronto. So it would be enough if there were more substance and sourcing being shown than there actually is — but as written, this only just barely says anything more than "he exists", and is parked on a single source rather than enough sourcing to actually clear WP:GNG. Accordingly, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to British media coverage than I've got can actually WP:HEY it up to a keepable standard — but for the moment, I have to go with delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something more substantial than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per [1] [2], he was Argyll and Bute's original Lib Dem MP candidate in 2001 before he stepped down, which is at least something more than councillor. However, WP:NPOL says that unelected candidates are not guaranteed notability, and I'm struggling to find much else on this fellow. "Pepper" @ 04:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The basis of WP:POLITICIAN is that there is a presumption that (sufficient) coverage exists about the subject for a particular office. As a collective, we assume that sufficient coverage exists for individuals who hold national or sub-national office. We also presume that substantive coverage exists for big-city mayors (especially those who are independently elected). I do not think the same presumption exists for city councilmembers (and I think that the global cities distinction for city councilmembers is not a useful criteria). As Bearcat recently wrote, WP:NPOL (for elected officials, when coverage is not presumed) "is achieved in one of two ways: either the coverage nationalizes into sources far beyond the geographic range in which such coverage is merely expected, and/or the local coverage volumizes to the point where a much more substantial article can be written." In this case, it does not appear there is either the volume of substantive coverage, nor does there appear an expansion of geographic scope of coverage. ---Enos733 (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A substantially unreferenced biography (other than the election result which I have added) on a local councillor and unsuccessful parliamentary candidate. (See also Glasgow_City_Council_election,_2012#Ward_7:_Langside.) Media searches return in-role mentions from the subject's time on Glasgow Council, but he does not meet the WP:POLITICIAN criteria and I am not seeing the substantial coverage which would be needed were he to have broader WP:BASIC notability for an article. AllyD (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Looked plausible, so I set out to source it. Found very little. Articles that cmae up on a Proquest News Archive search were few, and all routine. Tried searching for his academic career, but found only a single chapter in a book on Devolution. Also, source #1 is not really about about Colesville, but about the fact that the politician he replaces had been the "longest serving politicla leadder in the UK" at the time he stepped down.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2017 (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.