Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Silvester

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) 21:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Silvester

[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)

Minor politician only notable for one news story five years ago. I PRODded this way back when but never followed up on it. Sceptre (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sceptre (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic WP:BLP1E article. Edwardx (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES and Edwardx. Bearian (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being municipal councillors in small towns, but this does not present compelling evidence that he has preexisting notability for other reasons. Even the blip of national media coverage he received for absurdly blaming flooding on gay marriage just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of enduring public interest that would pass the will people still care about this in ten years test. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Town councillor for Henley-on-Thames. Fails WP:NPOL. Weak in the sense that all the national (and international) coverage of the subject falls into WP:BLP1E, without any real discussion about the subject (coverage is only the subject's 2014 letter to the Henley Standard [see the Daily Mail story as the best case for substantive national coverage]). However, the story did make BBC News' top stories of 2014, making this a closer case than I anticipated, as WP:POLOUTCOMES does contemplate keeping local officials if they "received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." --Enos733 (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Daily Mail was deprecated as a source two years ago. ミラ P 04:35, 13 October 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.