- 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, defaults to Keep Nakon 04:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comes nowhere near meeting the notability criteria in WP:BIO, which states "Just being an elected local official... does not guarantee notability". The article does nothing to suggest notability beyond being a local government councillor and Google suggests nothing (unless it's the same Sami Hashmi as the excellent speller in Florida!) BlinkingBlimey (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, common practice on Wikipedia (see WP:OUTCOMES) is that local councillors in major metropolitan cities such as London are likely notable enough for articles, even if councillors in most cities generally aren't. No vote, just $0.02 for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it states they are only like to be notable if they "(a) represent a historic first, such as the first woman, first person of colour or first LGBT person elected to a council, or (b) have received national or international press coverage" which I don't think is the case here.BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "although precedent has favoured keeping councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London, as well as..." Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of this I've started a discussion on WP:OUTCOMES to try and clarify which bodies are notable. I think is intended to apply to city wide bodies. If you take the examples listed (Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco and London) and include councillors in the count you would have 44, 50, 11 and around 1,500 people in each city notable for being elected. If you just included the London Assembly the London would have a more reason 25. Please pop across and voice an opinion! BlinkingBlimey (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "although precedent has favoured keeping councillors of major, internationally famous metropolitan cities such as Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco or London, as well as..." Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it states they are only like to be notable if they "(a) represent a historic first, such as the first woman, first person of colour or first LGBT person elected to a council, or (b) have received national or international press coverage" which I don't think is the case here.BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.