Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Whitehead

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. The consensus of the discussion is that POLITCIAN was not met. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Whitehead[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:POLITICIAN, relying almost exclusively on primary and unreliable sources for "referencing" — the only citation that passes muster here is not enough to demonstrate that he's more notable than most other city councillors who don't qualify for Wikipedia articles. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Politicians are the one category of biographies to whom GNG is generally not applied; instead a Special Notability high bar is frequently used, giving automatic passes to elected members of national and provincial assemblies, tending to give easy passes to national and provincial party leaders, and dealing with unelected politicians harshly on a case by case basis. Elected members of city councils are a grey area, with those of major metropolitan areas almost always kept while those of tiny towns usually treated as self-serving promotion. And so here we have a bio that is in the grey area of the grey area, an elected city council member from a mid-sized city. My opinion is that we should keep this one and here's why: Wikipedia is better off with the piece than without it. Ignore All Rules, Use Common Sense. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article, as written, doesn't even surpass GNG, let alone the specific inclusion standards for politicians that you're so eager to criticize — even GNG requires more than one RS. And Wikipedia is not better off with than it is without biographies of people who aren't topics of broad interest to a national or international, rather than exclusively single-city local, readership — such an article is not viably maintainable for BLP compliance if it doesn't attract a broad enough readership that vandalism or unsourced POV criticism can be caught promptly. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatantly fails our notability guideline for politicians. Sources such as MyHamilton.ca and Hamilton Spectator are too local to confer notability for GNG and none of them include "significant coverage" about the subject. Furthermore, the aforementioned articles appear to be pure routinary electoral reports. Cavarrone 13:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely fails the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Councillors in very large cities may be notable by virtue of their office, but Hamilton is nowhere near large enough to qualify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2014 (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.