Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R.J. Bartley

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 speedy keep. inclement weather (non-admin closure) _David ^WS _(contribs) 13:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R.J. Bartley[edit]

Being the Lord Mayor of Sydney does not automatically assert notability. Article presents no new info other than that found in the main article. No WP:RS either. Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 10:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - being mayor does automatically assert notability, thus why it should never have been a CSD candidate. THere is a distinction between asserting some sort of notability and passing WP:N. Now here, passing WP:BIO will require multiple WP:RS that are independent of the subject that provide substantial coverage of the subject. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being the mayor of Sydney, the largest city in Australia, certainly qualifies as "Major local political figures", per WP:POLITICIAN. The fact that there are few sources on Google is probably attributable to the fact he was mayor in the forties, before Google was around. I would be dead-set sure there are significant newspaper sources on this person lying about somewhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep. Being a mayor is not immediately notable, but being the mayor of the biggest city in Australia is. Also, nominator doesn't seem to have tried looking up reliable sources which, based on the edits since his nomination, clearly exist. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per arguments of Lankiveil. —SlamDiego_←T 11:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Being Lord Mayor of Sydney does assert notability. The references are quite good, I don't know why this article was listed for deletion at all. TopGearFreak ^Talk 13:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability confirmed and consistent with WP:POLITICIAN. WWGB (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2008 (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.