Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Patterson (Auckland 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

John Patterson (Auckland politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Local counciller only. Lacks any depth of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. (The Cyclopedia of New Zealand : Auckland Provincial District is vanity publishing). One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * weak oppose He was more than just a city councillor. The Auckland Star didn't just publish an obituary for anybody.  Schwede 66  07:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep member of city council, political figure in colonial Auckland, discussed in the standard history of local government in Auckland, Bush (cited).Rick570 (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That book is by the council about the council, not exactly independent. Is he discussed or mentioned? Is he just listed as a council member? Looking at the contents it appears those pages are in the appendix. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The references in Bush are just listings of his terms served and numbers of votes received in elections. He doesn't appear in the book's index so was presumably not considered more than one of many council members.- gadfium 22:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Was a Auckland City Councillor; is referenced to the Standard history of the council and took part in all council decisions during his term.Rick570 (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't !vote twice. Just being a councillor doesn't make him notable. The history just lists him as being a councillor, no depth of coverage. How do you know he took part in all council decisions? duffbeerforme (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Despite being one of a slew of articles, this one has some sources, particularly in papers past, including things such as this and this. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * neither provide any depth of coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2013 (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.