Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazel Bowyer


 * 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. ✗ plicit  03:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hazel Bowyer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Pure vanity/promo piece on a non-notable local politician and businessperson, effectively just says they had a career. Sources are few and poor, esp. once you discount the Wiki ones, and a search finds nothing better. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL. (Regarding the latter point, for those not familiar with UK's local gov't structures, a District Council comes nowhere near the sub-national elected body mentioned in NPOL.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. People do not get articles just for serving as chairpersons of local councils, the only other notability claim here is that she existed as a businessperson, and the article is not sourced even remotely close to well enough to make her encyclopedically notable for either of those things. I've already stripped the numerous references where the creator scanned a newspaper clipping and uploaded it to Commons — the problem being that scanning a newspaper clipping does not result in your own new "original" work that you're free to upload to a Wikimedia project under Creative Commons, because the newspaper still has a copyright on the content of those files, but (a) Commons cannot host non-free content, and (b) Wikipedia articles cannot be sourced to copyright-violating copies of content — but even if we set those problems aside and just assess them on their merits as sourcing, they still aren't GNG-building coverage anyway: one is just the caption to a photograph, one is her own self-created campaign ad, and one is just a very short article minimally verifying her election to the role, so they wouldn't have been enough even if they weren't unusable copyright violations. Politicians at the local level of office (city, town, county or district councils) are not entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically possible to verify that they existed as local officeholders — at that level of office, the notability test requires analysis of the significance of their work, not just proof that they existed. And after the removal of the copyright rips, there's nothing else left: five of the six remaining footnotes are primary sources (raw tables of election results, the self-published websites of organizations or companies she's been directly affiliated with, etc.) that are not support for notability at all, and the only one that's actually a real media outlet just glancingly namechecks her existence a single time in the process of being about her son. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be sourced a lot better than anything the creator has shown. Bearcat (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:06, 17 May 2021 (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.