Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Jones

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. RL0919 (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NPOL as only ever elected as a local councillor. Lord Mayor is a ceremonial role that rotates between councillors and confers little additional notability. Miraclepine in de-prodding argues that Birmingham's size makes its councillors notable, but that's not been the usual interpretation of WP:NPOL in UK politics. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lord mayor is a ceremonial role and does not make one notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lord mayor is a ceremonial role that rotates annually among the city councillors, not an inherently notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article. And while Birmingham is large and important enough that its city councillors could clear the bar if their articles featured substantive content about their political importance and were well-referenced to significant press coverage, they also don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing — but this article literally just states that she exists, the end, and references the fact to two pieces of coverage in the context of her health status, one primary source, one photograph, and zero coverage of her political career. This is not the depth of substance or the type of sourcing we require to deem a local politician notable enough for an international encyclopedia: the notability test for municipal politicians is the ability to write a substantive article, not just the ability to verify that she exists. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete rotating lord mayorships do not make one notable, and there is not enough sourcing here otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I added some more sources and information. I wonder if the coverage on her experimental treatment here, here and here would be enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Achaea (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input to the article. Those references are something, although it looks a bit WP:ROUTINE to me. Bondegezou (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't pass the WP:GNG. If councillors in big cities are generally assumed notable (which they shouldn't be) then the encylopedia would end up with a lot of very bare articles about them. Ralbegen (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2019 (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.