Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Elston


 * 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. consensus, in accord with standard practice  DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

David Elston

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Whether this article remains has already been discussed on the article's Talk page. Elston's main claim of any note is his (uncontested) election as deputy leader of a quite minor UK political party. He's also standing for election this May, which may be a reason for the recent flurry of editing activity. However, the independent news coverage about him mentions him only in passing and I can't see multiple examples of reliable, independent coverage which talk about him in any depth. Perhaps the best solution would be to redirect to Pirate Party UK. But effectively he's a very minor local politician in his own village, so deletion would be understandable! Sionk (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The election was contested, so I believe we can strike that from the discussion. Other points are worth discussing however. Drowz0r (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - I can see where conventionally Sionk's assessments could make sense in some consideration of notability in regards to fair democratic political societies. However, it would be appropriate to correct the initial misassumption and oversight by the honorable editor, that Elston's position as deputy leader of the Pirate Party UK was uncontested, this is simply not true. Further Elston is an incumbent government official of the United Kingdom. These points would already be enough in regards to meeting notability. In Elston's talk section the honorable editor, also quite rightly replied to my comment, stating that "Wikipedia isn't to promote people from obscurity, but to write about people who are already notable." However, what may have been missed here, is that notably is not the same as fame. There is a reason why these two separate words exist. Though they can often be confused by those not attuned to the historic significance of sometimes obscure seeming facts. Hence relative obscurity or minor appearance, do not automatically equate to the subject being non-notable. I would also suggest that counter to the argument, that it is in part the place of an encyclopedia to promote obscure yet notable facts. Thus, in the given circumstances, there is no question whatsoever that Elston is indeed notable. In terms of discussing political subjects in the current media landscape, that has now proven to be biased, and often unreliable in regards to dealing with political matter, this article also exhibits more than adequate reliable sources. Especially considering that the Pirate party is most concerned by the management of information itself. Thus, while the honorable editor, has stated that he believes "multiple examples of reliable coverage do not exist," it is still implied here by the nominator, that a degree of reliable sources and coverage do exist, and if one checks more throughly, it further transpires that there are indeed multiple examples and media interviews present. These reliable sources are more than adequate for notability. Otherwise, it would appear we are setting different standards of referencing for political information, than other subjects on Wikipedia. Which is certainly counter to the vision of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales. Who himself has covered the concept of obscurity and notability, stating that there exists a "danger of snap judgments particularly of the variety I have never heard of this, therefore it can't be important," when his article Mzoli's, was initially nominated for deletion. Notability is not an on and off switch. It occurs in degrees, and Elston, while he maybe no Donald Trump, yet, certainly falls within this degree of notability. Further, what propose does it really serve, to delete information about a government office holder, who is also a deputy leader of a British political party, and a candidate in an up coming election? Why was not the article nominated for deletion prior to the candidacy? If there is any doubt whatsoever that the article maybe targeted as consequence of a candidacy, then it must be kept, as this is a most dangerous course, with potential cataclysmic ramifications in the history of the use of wikipedia in political context in regards to discrimination and censorship, as the nature of the wikipedia project now transcends traditional encyclopedias, and is often even used by journalists to determine whether to cover a topic or not. If there exists even a potential of targeting to diminish grassroots political movements in this manner, one must air on the side of caution and acknowledge notability given it is these reliable journalistic sources, we are meant to be ruled by here in the first place. Indeed Elston is notable, and this article should be kept. $\mathfrak{Stephen Nightingale}$ ($Talk$) 00:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, Elston is not a member of the Government, he is a community councillor in rural Wales. Secondly, I did not imply there were examples in existence of in-depth, reliable secondary coverage about Elston. In fact quite the opposite, I've searched for them and can't find any. If there are substantive news articles etc. about Elston, please bring them to light. Sionk (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Once again the honorable editor is mistaken in judgement, please allow me to direct you to Wikipedia where it states that "A Councillor is a member of a local government council," indeed. Simply being from "rural Wales" or a member of local government there is not means enough for discrimination in the United Kingdom, as all of Wales whether rural or urban is an integral part of the sovereign United Kingdom on par with all others locales including Gibraltar. Thus, David Elston is indeed notable. $\mathfrak{Stephen Nightingale}$ ($Talk$) 14:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - As Sionk stated above and in the article itself, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote unknown politicians from obscurity. Quality over quantity has to be the consideration with regards to the sources - most a really only mentions in passing and others are simple paragraphs that don't establish any notability. The mere fact that the page already exists and the fact that it may otherwise be well written doesn't preclude it from being unsuitable for Wikipedia. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't state that? Drowz0r (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies, the response was directed towards Sionk instead and I copied in the wrong name. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The honorable editor is correct that the "purpose of Wikipedia is not to promote unknown politicians from obscurity," however the purpose of wikipedia is defiantly not to target and discriminate against "unknown politicians," sabotaging their chance of further discovery, in the current political media climate, if they are indeed notable, as David Elston the deputy party leader of the Pirate Party clearly is. Unknown, or perhaps disapproved by some, does not mean that the subject is not notable. I have already mentioned that the founder of Wikipedia Jimbo Wales's edict on the "danger of snap judgments particularly of the variety I have never heard of this, therefore it can't be important,". Thus, being ignorant of a subject is absolutely an incorrect biases to begin judging notability. Clearly here it's quite obvious the subject is a member of the local government with many reliable sources for anyone who wishes to read diligently. $\mathfrak{Stephen Nightingale}$ ($Talk$) 14:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong delete an "unknown polituician" is default not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The purpose of wikipedia is to inform the public about the world around them. In this way it is essential to have minority parties and their leaders on wikipedia to ensure that the public is fully informed. David Elston may not be notorious at the moment. However he still needs to be repesented to ensure that anyone looking to learn more about the PPUK is fully informed about the leadership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsykesvoyage (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   22:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   22:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Completely fails WP:BASIC. Has not received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Obviously fails WP:NPOL as a micro-level community councillor. AusLondonder (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being deputy leader of a minor political party is no automatic guarantee of inclusion in Wikipedia, and neither is being a community councillor for a local municipal government — in Wales, the lowest level of government that guarantees inclusion for an officeholder is the National Assembly for Wales, not any local town or city council. And Wikipedia's role is not to help minor political parties publicize themselves and their leadership, either. If he could be properly sourced over WP:GNG, then there would be a case for inclusion, but the sourcing present here is entirely too dependent on blogs, primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him, with almost nothing that actually contributes toward a compelling GNG case. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pirate_Party_UK, where he is mentioned as the party's deputy leader. This doesn't need it's own page, but it's a valid search term for the party itself. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.