Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Gough (politician)


 * 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. Although I acknowledge that a number of sources were provided as this debate wore on, an invitation for earlier contributors to rethink their views almost four days ago did not yield any changes to the consensus. As such, I am satisfied that the overall view is to delete. KaisaL (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Jamie Gough (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Politician who fails WP:NPOL - only served as a local city councillor. Doesn't appear to meet GNG, some local coverage but thats it Gbawden (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 15:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 15:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 15:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep It's not mentioned in this article, but Gough has often been in the news for his drinking and poor behaviour. Suggest keep and expand with more information. Notable for being badly behaved while on council business?! MurielMary (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a BLP violation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh OK sorry I had no idea - the situation is covered in news stories such as this: The Press and this second article from The Press so I figured that it would be ok to include in an article. MurielMary (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Including is not a problem in itself. But we usually go by WP:WEIGHT. Unless the crime has been covered repeatedly/has some lasting significance, it shouldn't be the only thing the article subject is known for. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Coverage of the drinking problem . is. in fact, "covered repeatedly/has some lasting significance" and covered in-depth, mention of it needs to be added to article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails notability NealeFamily (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable local councilor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete notable only for reasons that otherwise violate WP:BLP. Also references such as Linked-In are not reliable sources Ajf773 (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although Christchurch is a large enough city that its city councillors might be includable if they could be shown to satisfy WP:GNG, it's not in the rarefied level of cities that can give their city councillors an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing. There's simply not enough genuinely substantive content here to trump the WP:BLPPRIVACY issues posed by the public drunkenness claims — outside of that, there's nothing here that goes beyond the kind of "meet your councillor" PR profile that he could send out on his own campaign literature (which is not the kind of article that any politician at any level of office gets to keep on here.) Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * - - If keep, there is a request to move this page to Jamie Gough, if there are no other notable Jamie Goughs. But see Articles for deletion/Jamie Gough. There is also Jamie Gough (footballer), which I found deleted at Jamie Gough and I undeleted it and moved it to Jamie Gough (footballer) and re-deleted it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Scion of a wealthy family, for which reason some of the coverage is far from routine coverage of a minor politician . Nor will a simple "fails WP:POL do in this case since there is media coverage of his role in the family-owned corporation. The family corporation thing gets complicated, but since the political career and family wealth are interreleted, the article needs to be expanded with material like this:, here:  and here:  (note: that url looks sketchy, but is actually a joint operation of three major NZ newspapers, including The Press, The Dominion Post and the The Sunday Star-Times.  (Note this wealthy family business/dynasty needs an article of its own.)  Search on New Zealand's only "other" major newspaper (N.Z. looks big on a map, but pop. is tiny) here:  but note that he is not the dude that caught the baseball, and coverage of him is routing and limited in The herals, the Auckland paper.  It is in the South that Gough clan is a big deal.  But it is a big deal, which is why coverage in the 3 southern papers is extensive and often in depth, search results here: .  There is more in The Press, coverage of everything from his social life, to his insulting the lower classes, and mostly, of his work as a city councillor - over 400 articles, I only skimed the first 2 or 3 pages.  More coverage in The Southland Times, the Manawatu Standard,  and other  media, more than enough to make it a keeper. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Weak Delete: I'm on the fence here, but what pushes me towards delete is that I can't find any biography pieces about him, instead all of the news coverage is "Gough did/says this/that", this from the NBR was the closest I could find to a profile of him and it's not just about him. I am surprised that Gough Group doesn't have an article as a fairly large company, so perhaps some of this information can be moved into that, or into a Gough family article. Mattlore (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Mattlore here: is the profile article you wanted to see.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I missed that based on the headline. Now I think there is enough coverage to meet GNG and keep the article, clearly more than an average city councillor Mattlore (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as I'm still not convinced there's the convincing substance for his own actually notable article. SwisterTwister   talk  00:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Bearcat, User:Johnpacklambert, User:Gbawden would you revisit this?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and I also agree with SwisterTwister. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  03:35, 16 July 2016 (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.