Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Radford

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Radford

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article is not in and of himself notable to pass WP:NPOL for the fact he is President the Liberal Party (successor to the Liberal Party which merged with the SDP) per se —the depth and breadth of sourcing here is not enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Of the ten sources here, seven are general coverage of elections failing the notability guidelines, as any candidate get some background level of incidental coverage, and one is a primary source from the Liberal party directly; these cannot assist notability at all. Leaving just two pieces of reliable source. Of these one is a two word quote in a pink news article ,and one is a salacious story over his private life, in the local paper. Both of which are in now way enough to pass the notability guideline thresholds for his own article. The article also makes an unsourced claim regarding being the first openly gay Liverpool City Councillor, this is not backed up by a multiple reliable sources, and is not notable in and of itself to establish general notability. Its not a national first or the first openly gay Leader of Liverpool City Council, it fails to establish notability in and of itself. To earn a Wikipedia article, people at this level of significance have to be shown as significantly more notable than the norm for this level of significance, but nothing here shows that at all Sport and politics (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's the president of a UK political party that has 10 councillors in 4 electorates, which is enough to make him worth searching for. I'm amused at the allegation that he keeps a gimp in his cellar. Note that he has edited his own biography. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough status of the party, a few councilors in a small part of a small party of the country does not pass the party beyond the Wp:NPOL threshold. Also is president the leader, it appears to be ambiguous. Sport and politics (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being president of a small political party, which holds no seats in any body higher than local authority councils, is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself. He could still qualify for an article on that basis if it were based on enough reliable source coverage about him to get him over WP:GNG, but the position does not create an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts him from having to be properly sourced. But what we have for sourcing here isn't cutting it at all — fully half of the sources are raw tables of election results which do not assist notability at all; one of the remaining five (Digital Journal) is a user-generated "amateur journalism" site to which anybody can submit "news" about anything they choose; and even the four that are properly reliable sources are split between glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that isn't about him, and coverage in purely local-council contexts that doesn't constitute strong evidence of England-wide notability at all. No substantive coverage about him in the role of political party leader is being shown at all. All of which means that the depth and breadth of sourcing required to make a person at this level of public prominence notable enough for a WP:BLP is simply not in evidence. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs better inline citations and added coverage from the 2017 results but even simple Google search has material. Earnsthearthrob (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the leader of a political party. I believe in keeping all articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections without regard to size or ideology as a general principle as this is the sort of material that our readers should reasonably expect to be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. File this under the Policy of IAR if you must. Elected city council member as well so there is valid grounds for keeping per the SNG for politicians as well. Carrite (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear fail of WP:NPOL and WP:IAR is inappropriate to be applied to this article. as the precedent it would set would mean an article on everyone and everything. Sport and politics (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may disagree with my assessment, but WP:IAR does indeed apply: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Carrite (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject appears to fail NPOL and I'm not seeing enough in depth coverage to ring the WP:BASIC Bell. While I am sympathetic to the argument that the head of a serious political party should be presumptively notable there need to be limits. In this case we are talking about small... bordering on micro political party with no seats above the local level, and those being very few. Sorry but even on an IAR basis this is lowering the bar too far. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 02:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any in-depth national press coverage of him. It seems more appropriate to redirect to Liberal Party (UK, 1989) and include some detail about him there instead based on the coverage he has received. Ralbegen (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2017 (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.