Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leader of the London Borough of Havering
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 to London Borough of Havering. MBisanz talk 03:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Leader of the London Borough of Havering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A list of non notables and a list of duties. Mayor/Lord Mayor of a major city may be a notable position but not this. However, this is a list of people who fail WP:POLITICIAN Nuttah (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability (people) is an article guideline for what people should have biographical articles written about them. (Its older name was Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies.) It is not a content policy for what should be given as a list of office-holders in an article about the office being held. Our content policies are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please show why you think that a verifiable, neutral article, free from copyright problems and original research, about a governmental office, listing things such as the functions and duties of that office, and the people who have held it over the years, cannot be written here. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination and our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The onus is on you, per that deletion policy, to demonstrate why you think that it is impossible to write an article on this subject. Uncle G (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care about Wikipedia:Notability (people). I contend that the position is not notable and fails the general notability criterion 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.' Despite searching I can find no independent sources that discuss the position. The list may have been salvageable if it acted as a gateway to other articles, but as all of the named holders fail notability requirements that is not the case. The last possible saving grace would have been if the duties were somehow different to those of the leaders of any other London borough, but they're not. Nuttah (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know what WP:POLITICIAN, that you used in your nomination, actually links to, don't you? That's more like it, anyway. That second and third sentence are what should have been in the nomination in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I do, thanks for pointing it out again. I also understood that by pointing out the position was not notable, and reinforcing that by noting that all holders were also not notable, was not implying the nomination was based on the notability of the individuals. However, I'm always ready to explain to those who missed my point. Nuttah (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it was rather obscured by your linking to a guideline that you then said you didn't care about. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You've made it clear a number of times now that you didn't understand the original nomination. Do we really have to keep labouring the point, especially as it has been expanded to clear it up? Nuttah (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it was rather obscured by your linking to a guideline that you then said you didn't care about. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I do, thanks for pointing it out again. I also understood that by pointing out the position was not notable, and reinforcing that by noting that all holders were also not notable, was not implying the nomination was based on the notability of the individuals. However, I'm always ready to explain to those who missed my point. Nuttah (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know what WP:POLITICIAN, that you used in your nomination, actually links to, don't you? That's more like it, anyway. That second and third sentence are what should have been in the nomination in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care about Wikipedia:Notability (people). I contend that the position is not notable and fails the general notability criterion 'If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.' Despite searching I can find no independent sources that discuss the position. The list may have been salvageable if it acted as a gateway to other articles, but as all of the named holders fail notability requirements that is not the case. The last possible saving grace would have been if the duties were somehow different to those of the leaders of any other London borough, but they're not. Nuttah (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Noteworthy position within prominant government, encyclopaedic in format and content. WilyD 15:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect relevant content to London Borough of Havering. I cite precedent of almost every city's article out there that explains how the local government operates and is typically elected, but does not necessarily keep a listing of every person who held a given office. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Dennis: we don't create lists of nonnotable people simply because they held a position that doesn't make them notable. As noted by nominator, this isn't a notable position. Assuming that the borough is a reliable source about itself (I can't imagine why it wouldn't be), this would be a useful part of the borough's article. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect -- The target should however be an article on Havering Council, not one on the whole Borough. I note that none of the leaders appears to have a bio article. This suggests that (like most local councillors they are NN). The list of leaders should probably therefore be deleted in the merge process
- 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.