Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margot James (2nd nomination)

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 This doesn't seem to be the usual kind of local pol article but being a vice chairman of the tories isn't exactly an exclusive club. However this is clearly a notable person although some sources would be nice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Margot James

Margot James (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

My main reason for nominating is that it failed WP:BIO, it is a biography of a non-notable person and the guideline states that local politicians and candidates for office are not automatically notable. The article asserts notability beyond this because Margot James is an 'out' lesbian and because she is an 'A' list candidate. These reasons resulted in an 'keep' in the previous AfD discussion in August 2006. I do not believe that the intervening period has proved notability, while lesbian and gay Conservative candidates are still a rarity it is over 15 years since Michael Brown became the first open homosexual Conservative MP and the fact that she is an 'A' list candidate is solely a reflection of a political party's selection process, which I would contend should not confer notability (e.g. winning a primary in the US would not confer notability to a candidate who subsequently loses). BlinkingBlimey (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

• Keep. Notability is asserted. Whether the notability is sufficient is frankly a question that could go either way. WP:OUTCOMES (which is in no way binding) suggests that she may be worthy of keeping just on the basis of being a London councillor, so this additional notability should push her over the edge. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment For those not familiar with Greater London's local government, there are two tiers - a 25 member assembly covering the whole metropolis and 32 boroughs + the City Corporation, which have hundreds upon hundreds of councillors between them. I think the outcomes page has in mind the metropolis wide councils rather than the individual boroughs, and certainly that's been my experience of past AFDs where the sole claim has been a London Borough councillor. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That was actually brought to my attention in a different AfD. I'm on the fence about this one now, since there does still appear to be some notability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
      • These AfDs have raised an interesting contradiction in Wikipedia's guidelines. Personally I think WP:OUTCOMES may have been written by someone unfamiliar with London government who confused councillors with GLA members. I think GLA members are notable, some represent constituencies covering about 500,000 people. Councillors, on the other hand, are on the bottom rung, there must be at least 1,500 councillors in London. I stand by all my nominations (including this) being one of thousands isn't that notable, you need to able to assert notability outside of local government. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Further to this I've added a section on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes Seeking to clarify notability for elected members in London. City-wide elected members are notable, not London local councillors. The examples listed in WP:OUTCOMES Toronto, Chicago, San Francisco and London have 44, 50, 11 and around 1,500 members if you included councillors. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per comments in previous discussion. Catchpole (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - of course keep. She is vice chair of the Cons party. Besides which, she is one of the most significant figures in development of the modern conservative party attitudes to sexuality. She is regularly interviewed by national media. No brainer. Jagdfeld (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2008 (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.