Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peg Alexander


 * 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   no consensus. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Peg Alexander

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable politician. Being the principle speaker of the Green Party of England and Wales and being a parliamentary candidate do not qualify for notability purposes. Sport and politics (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. As joint Principal Speaker she was effectively joint party leader. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -The holding of this post of Principal Speaker does not make the subject notable. They have to have wider notability established by reliable third party sources. Simply holding one post in a small political party is not enough to make an individual notable (yes the Green Party are a small party, one MP two MEPs and a few councillors here and there, does not make them a medium or big party like UKIP, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives or Labour, etc.). In the same way hold municipal elected office in England does not make an individual notable. The post itself can be notable by its history, or high profile office holders, etc. in the same way the office of leader of a Municipal Council is potentially notable as an office. That though does not qualify the holders of that office for notability or inclusion in Wikiepida. There is also no reasoning as to how that post makes the individual holders notable, there is simply use of other stuff exists as a means of justification in this case,  which is inappropriate in this case. Sport and politics (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I completely disagree. The Green Party, while not in the front rank, is certainly in the second tier of British political parties, along with such parties as UKIP and Plaid Cymru and has been for some time. In my opinion, its leaders are notable. That, also in my opinion, is common sense, and there is nothing absurd about common sense. What is, however, absurd is to prefer dogma ("nothing in Wikipedia specifically says they are notable so they can't be notable") over common sense. Remember WP:BURO? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am almost certain you and I Necrothesp have no common ground and will never reach a compromise on this issue. I see this individual as clearly failing under WP:DISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTABLE per WP:POLITICIAN. Sport and politics (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As one of two Principal Speakers of the Green Party (by then represetned in European Parliament), she was certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - joint leader of a significant national party. Article already has a couple of decent sources providing evidence of notability, anyone with access to printed media of the period could find more. Warofdreams talk 00:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Being in the leadership of this party is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2014 (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.