Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Wright (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   redirect. Policy (in this case WP:POLITICIAN), strength of argument, and (least importantly) numbers show a consensus to redirect. Bristol South (UK Parliament constituency) seems to be the appropriate target at this time, but obviously if that changes anyone should feel free to alter it, and of course if Mr. Wright wins election this article can be resurrected. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark Wright (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article clearly fails the notability requirements of WP:POLITICIAN, a local councillor who is a prospective parliamentary candidate in the forthcoming UK General Election. The references consist mostly of press releases and some resultant stories in the local press. I redirected to Bristol South (UK Parliament constituency) as per WP:POLITICIAN. If he wins the seat on May 6, then the subject will have notability and the article can be re-instated. One editor reverted the re-direct three times, so I have nominated here for deletion (redirect to constituency). Jezhotwells (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete  per nom. PPCs and local councillors are nn. Wereon (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to Redirect - I've been persuaded by WP:CHEAP. Wereon (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak redirect I think it should be redirected as is generally happening with other PPC's, can redirects be protected? otherwise delete. btw the de-linker has Stated that they have 'withdrawn' from Wikipedia and these edits are their first contribution since May 2009 User:Chillysnow. --Wintonian (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, well now seems like a reasonable time to return to the fold. Entirely irrelevant to this discussion of course. Chillysnow (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC) (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject is an executive cllr in a large metropolitan city responsible for spend of over £100m of public money. There is clear precedent that such cllrs are notable, and the move to delete seems more motivated by the fact that he is now a PPC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.208.251 (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but which bit of WP:POLITICIAN suggests that there is "clear precedent that such cllrs are notable"? An analogy would be to divisional directors for medium sized corporations who generally are not notable as having not received substantial press coverage.  Issuing a few press releases which are picked up by local news outlets does not cut the mustard. As to your speculation on the nomination, it is just that - unfounded speculation. This is one of a series of articles, put up by political activists from moer than one party, which I and others have redirected.  The redirect on this one was reverted, by an editor who hasn't commented here so far, so I nominated. My preferred option is to redirect. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there's a clear precedent that such councillors aren't notable. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Wereon (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep- There is a general understanding that candidature doesn't infer notability but there appears to be a depth of reporting about this guy that supports his notability to an acceptable level. Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please let us know where the depth is. There are a lot of footnotes, yes. But read them. It's either the unreliable uncritical churning out of press releases (eg, ); or mere incidental coverage. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect (essentially, delete but for being a useful search term). WP:POLITICIAN exists for a reason; being a general consensus that neither local politicians normere candidates are notable. There are, of course, exceptions and that's why we have WP:GNG. However, all of the coverage cited in this article is local. Even then, there's nothing that primarily covers the subject of the article (Mark Wright) in any great detail. But most of all, we have to question the reliability of these local sources: many local newspapers with low circulation (which constitute the vast majority of sources here) generally just churn out press releases. Take this for instance: "Mark Wright welcomes an announcement by his own party's leader". That's not reliable journalism. That's PR. The unreliability of the sources is reflective in this article, which is a totally uncritical PR job. That's why we require significant coverage in reliable sources as the standard for notability, not significant coverage in any sources. When that distinction, and the reasons behind it, are understood, this article fails. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is not consensus that local politicians are not notable. WP:POLITICIAN supports this - it says: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." (Please, let's not start the "Bristol isnt a big city" nonsense either). The precedent is set by what is already accepted on wiki. There are a dozen such examples (often less worthy) at Category:Councillors in Manchester, Category:Councillors in Liverpool and Category:Councillors in Greater_London. It's very interesting that some are now trying to create new policy that local media coverage doesnt count "beacuse it isnt reliable journalism". That is an entirely subjective comment, and if you want to start judging the "reliability" of The Sun and other national media you will quickly get into quagmire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.208.251 (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP above fails to mention that the councillors in the categories above achieved notability either by being a leadre of teh council or in national politics at a later date. To take Category:Councillors  in Liverpool as an example: Joe Anderson  (politician), an unreferenced artcile about the current labour group leader, currently prodded, Bessie Braddock - once a local councillor, famous as a Labour MP, Mary Bamber, suffragist, trade unionist, leading figure in the early twentieth century labour movemnet, etc. These people are not in the list becasue they are councillors.  They are (mostly) notable people who happened to be once Liverpool councillors. Try reading and understanding Mkativerata's excellent commentary above. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You did the same research I did... There's three people in the Liverpool category who are basically there for being councillors and nothing else, plus another three or so who're there for being councillors and involved with Militant in the eighties. Leaving the Militants aside, we're looking at Mike Storey, Joe Anderson (politician) & Warren Bradley (politician); it's a bit confusing to say Wikipedia definitively "accepts" these, as there has never been a deletion discussion for any of the three, and so no express consensus either way. Many articles are retained simply because no-one's found them yet, after all - if we had an approval system before they were posted, we wouldn't have this sort of debate! Shimgray | talk | 11:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect per WP:CHEAP, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:OUTCOMES, and excellent discussion per Mkativerata. Bearian (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect, as with long-standing precedent on otherwise non-notable or marginally-notable parliamentary candidates; we can always resurrect the article in the event he wins! Shimgray | talk | 09:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per others. Perhaps a useful search term, but apart from that is not notable. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Whether I should say this or not I don't know, but it's just an observation so here goes. As the seat has been in the hands of the Labour Party since 1935 the chances of this guy being elected as am MP are slim, so unless he's done something else notable other than being selected as the area's Lib Dem candidate then it seems pretty pointless to have an article about him. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment --If he is elected, we will need the article. If not, it should be deleted after the election.  I think the consensus is that local councillors (even cabinet members) are NN, unless for otehr reasons.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe mods can resurrect deleted pages, which could happen should he win. There's no conceivable situation where Wright is notable now, but won't be after May 6. Wereon (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I reverted the deletion of this article because I believe the notability bar has been passed in this case. I of course agree that a lot of councillors and PPCs don't merit their own article however this guy has had a significant coverage in the local press, particularly in comparison to most, and that is enough to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, being a member of a council of a major metropolitan city.  Opinions voiced so far about the quality of the articles in which he features are subjective opinion - the articles in question still constitute appropriate coverage from reliable sources, the only argument revolves around the depth to which articles in the Bristol Evening Post go.  However the quality of the newspaper is not relevant to this discussion, as long as it itself passes the reliability test, which it clearly does.  Put simply, if this councillor wasn't a notable figure on the regional political scene, the BEP wouldn't be writing about him at all, being as notoriously unwilling to give any column inches to the Lib Dems as they are. Chillysnow (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But the BEP doesn't write about him at all. It merely rehashes press releases, quoting statements, that is not significant coverage in reliable sources.  –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles don't mention his shoe size or what he eats for breakfast, but they are all concerning important initiatives or projects he has created or is in charge of. This makes them entirely relevant and significant. Chillysnow (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete and Redirect. A lot of local coverage, but none of it seems to be more than soundbites on behalf of a local party. If the article stays, it needs some serious rewriting. At the moment, it's little more than a campaign piece. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - On the basis that he is the main challenging candidate in the Bristol South constituency and we have kept others in a similar position I think its only fair to keep this article too. Also coverage seems to be much greater than usual. -  Gallo glass  10:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Parliamentary candidates are non-notable! It is irrelevant if, as you say, he is "the main challenging candidate" - he's not notable unless (and until) he wins. We've had articles deleted before from others in a similar position - James Alexander of York Outer, for instance, or Annesley Abercorn of Hazel Grove. Wereon (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said before in many of these AfD's I entirely agree that candidates are non-notable Wereon. The problem is, its been decided in a very large number of AfD's such as those for Trevor Ivory and Rachel Reeves that they will be kept on that basis, hence the weak keep from myself in the interests of fairness for other candidates who have a reasonable chance of being returned to Parliament. -  Gallo glass  23:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since those debates, WP:POLITICIAN has been amended by consensus to require redirects as a "general rule" for candidates. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF applies here as an argument not to be used in deletion discussions. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have nominated Trevor Ivory for Afd as the article clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN; Rachel Reeves who appears to have a high media profile probably squeezes through, but the article has a number of issues which I have tagged. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I checked out one of the sources which, being a national newspaper, is good evidence of notability. Seems fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A passing quote in the Guardian is not "substantial coverage" –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not the only source. The point is that the nomination, which talks of local press,  is flawed.  The nomination also seems improper in that the nomination tells us that it has been made after attempts to  redirect the article have failed.  AFD is not here for the winning of edit wars.     Colonel Warden (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't it? Wereon (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No - see WP:GAME, WP:POINT and WP:DR. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That implies bad faith. What's the difference between an AfD, a dispute resolution regarding whether or not an article should exist? Seems to me they're the same thing. If there was no possibility of any dispute, it would have been speedied. Wereon (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect per Mkativerata, above. I see nothing in this article, or coverage, to suggest subject is anything but an ordinary politician seeking election to higher office, and hence not terribly notable in his own right. Ray  Talk 03:58, 17 March 2010 (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.