Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Cresswell


 * 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. There is no agreed policy that leaders of political parties are notable and there does seem acceptance tyhat the sourcing is not about him but the polices/politics so this could be covered in the party's article if relevant Spartaz Humbug! 04:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter Cresswell

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN Ironholds (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per nom, fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Can't find any  RS. Five years on  Wkipedia without  any  references (blogs are not references) is enough--Kudpung (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete, the New Zealand Herald is a RS and has a few trivial mentions including the reference, but that doesn't meet WP:GNG / significant coverage. XLerate (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO, also per Kudpung. Tyrol5   [Talk]  15:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - On basis of status as former leader of a political party, LibertariaNZ. Evidence. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How does that make him notable? Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Party leaders are inherently notable, in my opinion. Remember, notability guidelines are just that — guidelines — not sacred rules of universal applicability. I'm not making that up, here's the specific disclaimer on the guidelines page: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I'm big on using common sense in these deletion debates. Party leaders are the stuff of history. Tread lightly. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Party leaders are the stuff of history", hah. Give me 30 quid and I could go become leader of a party now - tell me, does that justify me having an article? This party got 0.05 percent of the vote at the last election! Ironholds (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would "justify you," if it were a real party. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For those of you more inclined to physical manifestations of notability rather than a philosophical standard, here is A New Zealand Herald op ed piece and an article by Cresswell in the NZ Libertarian press. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cresswell as an architectural theorist and political blogger... Carrite (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cresswell as figure of controversy in NZ politics. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence of Cresswell's ongoing leading role in the New Zealand libertarian movement. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * News report in NZ's biggest paper noting Cresswell as keynote speaker at a political rally. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Acknowledgment that Cresswell's political blog is the 4th most popular in NZ. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that Cresswell is a public figure in a small country. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * One reliable source and four blogs. Nice. Ironholds (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is whether this inclusion is merited. If one wants to worship at the altar of the mainstream media — which in the New Zealand context means NZ Herald coverage and not too awfully much more — that is their right. I personally think it's a pretty silly way to gauge the importance of all but a handful of Auckland-centered major party politicians. Blogs are becoming the main mode of political discourse around the world, just as electronic dictionaries such as Wikipedia are becoming the main mode of that sort of publication. The question is: is Cresswell worthy of inclusion? I contend that he is, as one of the leaders of the libertarian movement in New Zealand — which is inherently a small subset of a small subset of the entire English-speaking world. Use common sense. Tread lightly. Carrite (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So common sense is to treat blogs as reliable sources and give the leader of a party with 0.05 percent of the vote an article, based on no coverage in sources. Right. What you call common sense, I call funny-flavoured kool-aid. Ironholds (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would argue this: the notion of "reliable sources" is a completely false construct. The important thing is veracity and verifiability and that a subject be presented neutrally. There's a huge humpus bumpus going on now here at the big WP over whether Fox News is a (quote) "reliable source" (unquote). The answer, of course, is "it depends what they're saying." Is it accurate? Is it truthful? Is that piece of evidence pulled from Fox News being presented in a neutral manner, or is it being used like a cudgel in a POV edit war for political gain? The same with all sources. We shouldn't be looking down our nose at this source because it's an electronic-only publication or worshipping that one because it is broadcast on a TV station owned by a billionaire that produces news shows as infotainment. Each piece of evidence must be individually weighed for veracity. Just use common sense with regard to deletion debates is all I'm saying. Party leaders are public figures. They should have a very low bar for inclusion. Businesses trying to sell stuff and making use of a Wikipedia page as a free ad should be treated altogether differently, much more harshly. It's ridiculous counting "reliable source google hits" and making judgments on that basis. The question is: does it belong in an encyclopedia? Peter Cresswell??? Yeah, I think so. He's arguably THE leader of the New Zealand libertarian movement, it seems. That's enough to get a free pass from me. Carrite (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Carrite, you need to be putting links you find into the article. This discussion is not about 'is this person notable' it's about 'does the entry provide evidence that this person is notable.' Links added to this discussion are completely irreverent. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Just now I've added multiple reliable newspaper sources that reported on his various activities while he was party leader. It appears that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And do the sources cover him in significant detail? Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They simply report on his political activities as noted; they aren't providing his life history, for example. If there was only one or two of them, I'd not be inclined to recommend "keep", but I'm going along with the GNG's statement that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." And that quite a few of them turn up. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Former leader of a registered political party. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, where does that appear in the notability guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The notability guidelines specify "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." " I consider that the article already references significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article are already provided, so I was adding relevant information about the subject. In comment to one of your earlier claims, please note that you need more than "30 quid" to become the leader of a registered political party in New Zealand; such registration also requires a certain membership figure (which some other parties have failed to meet and thus failed to be registered). Also please note that I am not a supporter of the party, nor of its central philosophy, but am aware of it through its media coverage. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is your rationale, make it clear when you post it. When commenting on AfDs, make clear your reasoning behind the comment; simply stating "former leader of a registered political party" is not likely to be considered by an admin. Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: A very salient  point  has been made that  even if reports have been found in  established newspapers, this does not necessarily  assert  notability.--Kudpung (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a reliable secondary source; the mentions in the NZ Herald are trivial, not supporting notability. N2e (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - He does seem like an interesting person, however I will be voting "delete" here. Reference number 1 is only a short article and Cresswell is only given a passing mention, so this cannot be used to establish notability. I am unable to verify the others as they are from hard copy sources, but the titles seem to indicate these articles are also about groups and events related to Cresswell, but not necessarily about Cresswell himself. I would be willing to change my vote if someone with access to these "dead tree" refs will give us a general percentage count of how much Cresswell is covered in them. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. By the way, I agree with you that the mention in the NZ Herald does not support notability. But the others (taken together) do, in my view:
 * The article in The Timaru Herald: 14%.
 * The one in The Evening Post (March 2001): 56%.
 * The one in The Dominion: 13%.
 * The one in Waikato Times: 22%.
 * The one in The Press: 75%.
 * The one in The Evening Post (December 2001): 80%. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep party leader with notable coverage. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Party leaders are not inherently notable and the coverage (in my view) isn't "significant". For politicians, I think significant coverage needs to be more than the standard incidental political mentions. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:58, 21 August 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.