Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Stafford (2nd nomination)


 * 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 &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Gregory Stafford
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously deleted at AfD. Still fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   05:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   05:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   05:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment. There have been repeated edits by IP editors to the article on Cardiff Central (UK Parliament constituency) claiming that Gregory Stafford is the Conservative candidate for that seat. -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) 15:14, 10 May 2017‎ 165.225.80.252
 * 2) 16:36, 10 May 2017‎ 213.152.162.10
 * 3) 09:47, 11 May 2017‎ 213.210.2.234
 * 4) 15:52, 11 May 2017‎ 80.7.141.152
 * Evidently the IP editors were well informed. Reliable sources now show that he is the Conservative candidate for that seat.--  Toddy1 (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election — if you cannot show and properly source that he already had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the seat, not just run for it, to get a Wikipedia article on the basis of the election itself. But there's no evidence of preexisting notability here, because serving on a borough council isn't an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL either. For both local borough councillors and as yet unelected parliamentary candidates, the path to a valid notability claim lies in being able to reliably source them as significantly more notable than the norm for that role, not in simply being able to verify that they exist. No prejudice against recreation on or after June 8 if he wins, but nothing here gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject's role as opposition leader seems to have generated adequate biographical coverage for our purposes and so this passes WP:BASIC. Andrew D. (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't just say that media coverage exists to confer a WP:GNG pass — you have to show the evidence that enough media coverage exists to get him over GNG, ideally by actually adding it to the article but at the very least by showing actual hard results of a search in this discussion. Anybody can simply claim that coverage exists about anything — so it's not enough to just say that if you're not showing proof. Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This article was nominated for deletion within a few hours of its creation and, as a new creation by an inexperienced editor, it's obviously a weak stub. In considering the merits of the topic, experienced editors like us are expected to go beyond what's in the stub, reviewing available sources using the search links provided above.  I have done this and am satisfied that the sources out there mean that the topic passes WP:BASIC.  I have cited that guideline, as suggested by the edit notice ("valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements").  Per WP:CHOICE and WP:NOTCLEANUP, there is no requirement for me to do the work of actually writing the article.  I might still go on to improve or rewrite the article per our editing policy but first we should dismiss this deletion proposal which naturally has a chilling effect on such work.  Per WP:BITE, "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility". Andrew D. (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that you were required to fix the article yourself — while certainly that's the preferred way to resolve any concerns about whether a topic actually clears GNG or not, it's not the only possible way. But a topic absolutely does not clear GNG just because you assert that a GNG-satisfying volume of sourcing exists — again, anybody can simply claim that about anything whether quality sourcing actually exists or not — but you do have to at least show the actual results of a search in this discussion: such as some actual URLs of actual examples of quality sources, actual numbers of hits in news databases, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the case here has to be made by those wanting action, who are expected to search for sources and alternatives to deletion per our deletion policy. Andrew D. (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Cardiff Central (UK Parliament constituency), the consensus is that simply being on a local council in England does not establish notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that the rival party leader, Julian Bell, has an article. This demonstrates that there's no such consensus and we should rely upon WP:GNG, in our general way. Andrew D. (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nothing stops anybody from trying to create an article about anything they want to, so plenty of Wikipedia articles exist that rightly should not. The existence of that article does not prove that a consensus exists to keep such articles — all that proves is that until you pointed it out just now, none of Wikipedia's responsible editors had noticed it in order to give it a proper evaluation for whether it met our inclusion standards or not. So it's entirely possible that the article on Julian Bell should be deleted, rather than constituting evidence that the article on Gregory Stafford needs to be kept just because Bell has one. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent" and so it supports my position. Julian Bell is not an isolated example; he is in the category Local political office-holders in England which is an extended hierarchy which well demonstrates that such content is acceptable and accepted. Andrew D. (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that we don't accept articles about people whose only claim of notability is as a local councillor. There are a fair number of people who served as local councillors and then went on to also achieve higher, more includable notablity claims — for example, four of the five people in went on to serve as MPs at Westminster, and the other has been head of an important national organization. All five have articles on the latter grounds, not because borough council per se — the borough council is just an additional detail about a person who has an article because other reasons. But nobody gets a Wikipedia article because borough council per se, if they haven't also attained something significantly more notable than borough council alone — except perhaps in the rare occasion that they can be especially well sourced as a lot more notable than the norm for that level of significance. Bearcat (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   04:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Only coverage is in local news such as which is really about local issues not Stafford as a person/political figure: he is a run-of-the-mill local politician, and per WP:NPOL he is not notable, having neither a sufficiently important politician nor significant, non-routine press coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * delete fails WP:NPOL. Local coverage as a local councillor. LibStar (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * delete Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for politicians. Fails WP:NPOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogermx (talk • contribs) 16:01, 26 May 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.