Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Worrell

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. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Worrell

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPOL. Would have restored the redirect, but that was contested, and due to discussions at ANI, that is no longer an option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's been often held at AfD that city councilmen of cities of the size and international scope of Boston do indeed meet NPOL. Obviously the article needs better sourcing, but with over 270 G News hits [1], I've a hard time imagining that there aren't at least a couple providing significant coverage to the subject; what measures did the nom take for assurance that there aren't any? Also, would the nom care to link to any ANI discussion referencing this article? Ravenswing 16:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I improved the article some, but it needs more work. Despite that, as it stands now, notability is shown with the existing sources. Therefore, it meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The individual and the sources show notability. All other existing members of the Boston City Council have existing Wikipedia pages. Therefore, this individual is no different. FranDoe16 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my own review, I find that the article subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NPOL and via WP:SIGCOV in independent secondary WP:RS. The coverage of the subject is beyond WP:ROUTINE and meets the significant threshold to sufficiently indicate WP:NOTABILITY via SIGCOV criteria. Furthermore, notability is demonstrated in satisfying WP:NPOL with sufficient notability through GNG. NPOL is also met by the subject, since the degree of coverage by reliable independent secondary sources exceeds WP:ROUTINE. An article on a non-notable subject would be eligible for deletion under GNG requirements, however, this subject passes WP:NPOL to sufficiently demonstrate notability according to WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, I find that GNG and NPOL are satisfied as well, as demonstrated by the in depth reliable secondary source coverage of the subject. I would be more inclined to suggest deletion if the subject didn’t have demonstrable notability via lack of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV or failing WP:GNG or NPOL. Since these criteria are met, though, I see a strong policy-based rationale for inclusion. Deletion could be considered if NPOL wasn’t met (which would also weaken the GNG case), but in this case the relevant notability guidelines are passed and the article should not be eligible for deletion. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2023 (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.