Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippa Roe


 * 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. Although there is some disagreement about the notability of her political position, she meets clearly WP:GNG, as seen in the in-depth coverage in multiple sources added to the article during this discussion. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Philippa Roe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Ms Roe's fame rests on two considerations: she is a senior local politician (head of Westminster Council) and she is seeking to become the Conservatives' London Mayoral candidate. WP:NPOL says local politicians are not generally considered notable, so I feel the former is insufficient notability. WP:NPOL also says that merely being a candidate (and Roe is merely a candidate to be a candidate) is insufficient notability.

The article currently cites 6 articles. Two are Westminster Council pages, and one is a party blog. That leaves 3 independent, reliable sources. Two are local papers: the Ham & High is a very local paper, the Evening Standard is a more significant publication, but still local in that it's London only. Most recently added is a Telegraph article, a national newspaper which could be argued to demonstrate WP:GNG. However, it seems to me that this article is about Roe's candidacy and the usual policy is that such material is better covered on the Wikipedia article about the election concerned. What we don't have is a body of work about Roe generally that would satisfy WP:GNG. More articles about her Mayoral candidacy are probably out there, but (unless she wins, which seems deeply unlikely) these should be covered on the London Mayoral election race or on a new article about the Conservative selection for a candidate (we already have such an article for the Labour selection). There is no reason here, as I see it, for an article specifically on Roe at this time. Bondegezou (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For reference, London Labour Party mayoral selection, 2015 is the Labour selection article. I would be happy to see a London Conservative Party mayoral selection, 2015 article incorporating citations and content from the current Philippa Roe article. Bondegezou (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I would consider that the leader of a council as significant as Westminster was notable, although ordinary members wouldn't be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per the nom, "she is a senior local politician (head of Westminster Council) ". This is Westminster, not East Grinstead. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NPOL gives notability to "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." (Emphasis added.) I do not see significant press coverage for Ms Roe beyond her candidacy, which would be better covered under the relevant election article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, now you're just being silly. "Leader of Westminster Council 'not notable' declares Wikipedia, owing to lack of press coverage". That's a story to run alongside the "Liberal mole inside Wikipedia blocks Grant Shapps" ones. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with Bondegezou.  Saw this article -all of it written yesterday -as a clear attempt to use Wikipedia to boost a specific candidate who doesn't meet notability criteria. Can always reinstate if she wins. JRPG (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The acid test is simply that of WP:GNG, significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. All notions of someone's standing in the world are beside the point, but it would be pretty hard for the Leader of an important city council to escape notability. I created the article, and I am not the least bit interested in whether the subject is selected to fight the London mayoral election, and indeed I only added a mention of it as an afterthought. In any event, my motivation is irrelevant. If Bondegezou would like to see more sources, I am happy to add them. Moonraker (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for your work on the article to date. If you have further sources, it would certainly be helpful to add them -- thanks. I cannot see how the article currently meets WP:GNG on the existing sources for the reasons I gave above. Bondegezou (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * More comment Moonraker has done a great job adding several more citations and people should re-visit the article. Personally, I remain of the opinion that, while this new material is beneficial, Ms Roe still does not meet WP:GNG. As far as I can see, only the Standard, Telegraph and West End Extra article are about Ms Roe rather than mentions, i.e. meet WP:GNG criterion #1. The three articles that are substantially about her are about her bid to be the Conservative Mayoral candidate and precedent is clear here that candidacies are better covered on an election article. Bondegezou (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply Thanks for your kind words, Bondegezou! The nub of WP:N is not importance but verifiability, that's the nature of the threshold to be met, and in this case all the information in the article can be verified from reliable sources independent of the subject. It might help if you could give us a link to the policy you have in mind on candidates, but I doubt if it will be pivotal. From memory, I think there is a presumption that politicians holding national and international offices (including members of parliament) are inherently notable by way of the office they hold, so that in their cases the GNG principle is rather beside the point. Clearly, that presumption can't apply to candidates for such offices, or someone could become notable just by collecting ten signatures and paying a deposit. All the same, even a mere candidate for office is notable if he or she complies with the verifiability principle of the GNG, as (I suggest) Philippa Roe does here. It is also arguable that the Leader of a major city council might be the holder of a significant office, but I don't need to rely on that. Moonraker (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

But we have WP:NPOL and it's quite clear. Local politicians are not considered inherently notable. You can't read WP:NPOL any other way. The obvious parallel to a Los Angeles councillor is a London Assembly member, which we do consider notable, not a Westminster Council member. (For comparison, LA councillor is a full-time job paid $178,789 per year; Westminster councillor is not a full-time job with no actual salary, just an allowance, although the Leader of the councillor does get more, a grand total of £44,000 per year.) Anyway, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't relevant: it never matters in a deletion discussion that other articles exist. We have to judge this one against policy and guidelines. Bondegezou (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply I wouldn't say that the nub of WP:N is verifiability. Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for something to warrant an article on it. WP:N makes this distinction between "how suitable a topic is for its own article or list" and "Wikipedia's policies regarding content" (i.e. "Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons"). Notability guidelines for politicians confer notability on "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature"; Ms Roe does not meet any of those criteria. Leading a borough council, one of 33 in London, is below the "sub-national" threshold. The guidelines then go on to include "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." and notes "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"." In other words, Ms Roe needs to meet WP:GNG, which means ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". As I say above, I only see three articles specifically about Ms Roe and all three relate to her (since failed) candidacy. The idea that candidates are better covered on an election article stems from WP:1E. That said, your work on the article has certainly moved it closer to notability and I concur that leading a borough council is of some significance. Bondegezou (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that we do consider city councillors in large cities to be inherently notable. I don't think all London's borough councillors are notable (although members of the London Assembly are), but I think the council leaders probably are. It's a senior position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the equivalent of those city councillors we consider notable are London Assembly members, that is representatives to a provincial (i.e. city-wide) legislature. Roe is not a city councillor in that sense: Westminster City Council is (despite the name) a borough council representing only 1/33rd (approx.) of London. We don't consider all borough councillors notable. Yes, being council leader is different to just being any councillor, but nothing in WP:NPOL refers to that distinction. (Perhaps that is something to take to a discussion on revising WP:NPOL.) By WP:NPOL, Ms Roe needs to meet WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * England doesn't have provincial or sub-national legislatures, so that clause in WP:POLITICIAN doesn't apply. The London Assembly is no more a sub-national or provincial legislature than are county councils, and county councillors are not generally considered to be inherently notable. The city councillors in other large cities like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc, are also considered to be inherently notable, although those councils are beneath sub-national level (since that would be the state legislatures). See what I mean? These are local, not sub-national, politicians, yet they are considered to be inherently notable through virtue of their office, so why shouldn't borough council leaders? In other words, there are no guidelines governing any of this and it's all down to perception and opinion. It is true that there is officially no inherent notability on Wikipedia, but as any of us who've been here any length of time know, that really is just dogma and there certainly is considered to be de facto inherent notability for various groups. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * London Assembly members and LA councillors are also local politicians under WP:POLITICIAN, so you clearly are reading it another way! Should they be considered inherently notable? I'm not sure, but I know what would happen if I proposed they should be deleted! Should leaders of major British borough councils be considered notable? I believe that if we consider every councillor in a major city council to be notable then we should also entertain the possibility that leaders of other significant councils might be too. After all, these people are not infrequently granted CBEs and knighthoods. This would of course grant them de facto inherent notability under WP:ANYBIO, but if people in their posts are considered eligible for such high honours it suggests that the posts (and therefore by definition the holders) are considered pretty significant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The London Assembly fits with the phrase "provincial legislature" in WP:NPOL; Westminster Council clearly does not. London has a bigger population than Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland; Westminster council does not. I think there's a clear difference between the London Assembly and Westminster Council that is consistent with the wording of WP:NPOL. Otherwise, I refer you again to WP:OTHERSTUFF and if Ms Roe is knighted, then that will be relevant, but she hasn't been. Bondegezou (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "The London Assembly fits with the phrase "provincial legislature" in WP:NPOL." No, sorry, but it does not. If it is a "state or provincial legislature" then so is a county council, and they are clearly not (and have been held not to be at AfD). London's population is irrelevant. If we're talking population, note that Westminster has a population greater than some sovereign states or provinces whose political leaders do clearly meet WP:POLITICIAN. Incidentally, if Ms Roe is knighted I shall be very, very surprised...unless she's had a sex change of course! However, my point was that these offices often do attract high honours, which suggests that the authorities do regard them as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Further reply The point of WP:NPOL is not to over-ride the GNG and make topics non-notable which comply with it. In any event, the relevant line of WP:NPOL is this "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." (That wording is rather foolish, because it suggests that "press coverage" is better than information from more reliable sources.) In this case, the press coverage alone is plainly significant, and most of it is nothing to do with the London mayoral election of 2016. The idea that having applied for selection as a party candidate for an election somehow makes a politician non-notable will not run. If Philippa Roe were a rapper or a banjo-player and had been the subject of articles in several national newspapers, and if information about her were available in non-fiction books (including a parliamentary report), no one would seriously challenge her notability. The suggestion by Bondegezou here seems to be that local politicians are inherently non-notable, and it is absurd. The last bullet point of WP:NPOL spells out the position: "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". " Moonraker (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply WP:GNG is clear that ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". Most of the material cited in the article mentions Ms Roe in passing, but is not principally about her. Such is entirely appropriate and welcome for supporting information given in the article, but does not contribute to a WP:GNG argument. I only saw three articles that are chiefly about her, and all three were about her (since failed) mayoral candidacy. As per WP:1E, candidacies are better discussed in election articles if the individual is not otherwise notable. I do not see "Significant coverage" beyond her candidacy; reliable source coverage, yes, but not significant coverage. However, I recognise that my position here has not gathered consensus support(!) and, Moonraker, you have certainly greatly improved the article since I first nominated it. Bondegezou (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2015 (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.