Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Dawson

Add links
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 Keep. ELIMINATORJR 16:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Dawson

[edit]
Katie Dawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non notable local politician from London, no significant press coverage. Fails WP:BIO Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 07:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Only coverage seems to be on various websites of her political party, blog sites and one solitary mention in a local newspaper. --Malcolmxl5 08:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First councillor from her party in London suggests notability. Also standing in the Mayor of London elections in 2008, which will generate coverage. Third party coverage: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] etc JulesH 08:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local council members and failed candidates aren't notable politicians. Nick mallory 08:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep WP:BIO is quite clear on politicians. This does not meet the criteria for notability; although it does weakly receive "mutliple independent coverage" per JulesH, the notability issue is the problem. Pedro |  Chat  08:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is quite clear, yes. It suggests that "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable, which seems to me to be satisfied in this case. I've linked 9 articles above, in both local and national press. Some are about Dawson's activities, others are biographical or general interest in nature. They're only a selection of what's available. JulesH 10:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The WP:V holds up via the good research by JulesH. But WP:BIO says "major local figures" in regards to politicians and nothing in the article or the links indicates she is a "major" figure to me. I don't want to sound like I'm arguing with semantics though, so more input required from others I think. Pedro |  Chat  10:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Green councillor in the heart of trendy London. It's perfectly likely that people who have had no personal contact with her might want to look her up, which is my criteria for notability. Abberley2 11:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - verifiable and semi-notable beforehand, but now we've been made aware of her running for mayor of London in 2008 that definately makes her major/notable. London has a population nearing 8 million and City of London alongside NYC is the leading centre of global finance, the very act of running for mayor of London means that the person becomes connected to many issues, and will be searched for in wikipedia by many people. Elmo 12:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. London is one of the largest and most important cities in the world, and its councillors are a bit more than "local". RandomCritic 13:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I understand the term 'local politician' in WP:BIO, it doesn't indicate the size, notability, or importance of the city represented, simply that the politician does not hold 'international, national or statewide/provincewide office'. This means that despite London being of great international importance, Ms. Dawson is still considered a local politician. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought she was a member of the London Assembly, which effectively is a provincial legislature for the Greater London region. But it looks like she's only one of 48 councillors for Islington, a small division of London which is obviously much less significant. So I withdraw my argument. RandomCritic 23:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 23:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep As I read WP:BIO it says that less-important local figures are not encyclopedic without significant press coverage, which I interpret as being the usual two RSS--and these are present. DGG (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage identified by JulesH established notability for me. The coverage is not just incidental with her being talked of leading campaigns and being deciding vote as well as being first Green councillor on Islington council. Davewild 07:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After finally getting leisure to review JulesH's diffs in full and to do some better digging myself I have changed to Keep. The Notability and Verifiability, coupled with the opportunity fo rthe article to be expanded as the mayoral elections unfold have convinced me that we should retain this article. Pedro |  Chat  10:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This will never become a featured article, to be sure, but I feel that there are enough third party references to barely satisfy our WP:BIO guidelines. Burntsauce 17:36, 1 August 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Katie_Dawson&oldid=1137966693"