Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter John


 * 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. Notability not established under guidelines  SilkTork  *YES! 12:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter John

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Cllrs are not generally deemed notable under WP:POLITICIAN. If he were leader of the council, or a cabinet member, this would be another matter, but as things stand, appears to be promotional, anticipating future notability. (Article appears to have been created by the subject, and edited in large part by his co-Cllrs, so although they're obviously welcome in the debate, please do read our policies on notability, reliable sources, verifiability, bios of living people and politicians first if you don't come here often) Saalstin (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obviously fails WP:POLITICIAN. For WP:GNG there seems to be a fair bit of coverage in local news but nothing beyond that. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:POLITICIAN (which I think this person easily pases) does not trump WP:GNG. It's the opposite.--Oakshade (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I've said he passes neither. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Elected council person in major city. Easily passes both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:POLITICIAN.  Has significant coverage from reliable independent sources. Is even Southwark Labour Party leader.--Oakshade (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city", per WP:POLITICIAN, and "members of a borough council (one of many) within a major metropolitan city", per this guy. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The "reliable sources" you mention appear to be from a local community website published by a "small family-run web and print publishing business". As it is small and local, independence and reliability cannot be taken for granted. Stronger sources need to be identified if the article is to be viable. Road Wizard (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is and was absolutely no "local sources don't count" clause in WP:GNG. If a "local" source has editorial control over its content and is independent of the topic, it is a reliable source, per WP:SOURCES.  And besides, we're talking about a major borough of London, not a little community. --Oakshade (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is about the quality of the source and publisher, not the size of the local community. Depending on the circumstances of each case, a local community website may be more or less reliable than a blog. My point is that it cannot automatically be assumed that the website is reliable; that is a subjective judgement based on the known quality of the publisher and their ability to verify facts. As is stated in the guidance you linked to, "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."
 * A "small family-run web and print publishing business" could be as reliable as The Daily Telegraph or as unreliable as the Daily Sport. Unless there is some strong evidence of the publisher's reliability I would place the quality of it somewhere between a blog and a local newspaper. That is a fairly weak source on which to place the foundation of an entire article. Road Wizard (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely nothing wrong with the source London SE1 (SE1 is the postal code for south London, btw). It could be owned by a family or Rupert Murdoch (DT).  It doesn't matter.  What matters to WP:GNG is independent editorial control over its content.  In the case of London SE1, while you are calling it weak, it actually appears to be a very thorough journalistic news source for south London.--Oakshade (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Existing source material is very weak; 6 from the council website referring to one of the councillors (basically a self-published source), 1 from the local Labour party about their councillor (another self-published source), 1 from a blog (Operation Black Vote) and 1 from a local community website of unknown reliability. The strongest source appears to be the Financial Times, but the reference is trivial (1 sentence out of the whole article, and much of that is a quote about somebody else). The article needs far more independent, non-trivial, reliable sources to be sustainable. Road Wizard (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Oakshade argues, passionately and accurately, that the GNG trumps the subject's failure to meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. Indeed it does, but I'm missing the part where there's a single reliable source discussing Mr. John in "significant detail," as the GNG requires.  Google News UK returns a dozen hits for the past year from the Southwark News (which its own website claims to be a borough weekly with a circulation of 9,660), each and every one of them a quote about some local political issue or another, but none about Mr. John.    Ravenswing  09:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Snappy (talk) 12:41, 4 January 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.