Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Codd

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. Failed multiple notability "tests." Deleting. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Codd

[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)

Non-notable local politician. Google search shows no notability and basically unknown outside of his own county. Does not meet WP:NPOL. Article seems to have been created as the subject is running for office, which is not notable in itself. Also suspiciously WP:COI. Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the fact that the content is so obviously and overtly promotional, the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. On the latter, the subject has never held national or similar office (only very recently being elected to a local council). On the former, the only coverage of the subject is the run-of-the-mill coverage about his candidacy in the pending general election. The only material coverage is the relatively limited coverage that is already linked in the article. (Much of which, frankly, appears to have been copy/pasted into Wikipedia without consideration to WP:COPYVIO or WP:CLOP guidelines. To the extent that, in honesty, this could likely have been speedy deleted under WP:G11 (as unambiguous promotion) or WP:G12 (as clear copyvio of the few local news pieces upon which it is based).) Guliolopez (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update - While I found it very odd that a new editor would give a barnstar/wikilove to an editor (with whom they had absolutely no overlap and who has been inactive on the project for a decade), I hadn't referred to the author's odd editing patterns or COI concerns (raised by the nominator) in my note above. That the author has since expressed a connection to the subject seems relevant to this thread. Certainly it has cemented my own concerns and recommendation. Which remains a firm "delete". Guliolopez (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing against the subject, just to be clear, but serving on a county council is not in and of itself grounds for a Wikipedia article — in Ireland, unfortunately, the only politicians who get a guaranteed pass of WP:NPOL just for the fact of holding political office are actual Teachtaí Dála. For politicians at the local level of office, including county councillors, the notability test is not just the ability to verify that he exists, but the ability to write a really substantial article that reliably sources some genuine context for his political importance, e.g. by demonstrating that he has much more nationalized significance than the norm for county councillors. But the county council's own self-published website about itself, a piece of raw technical verification of election results and a tiny smattering of purely local campaign coverage in the local media is not enough sourcing to do that. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No offense to the subject, but this article is wafer-thin and pure promo in tone and feel.TH1980 (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BASIC.----Pontificalibus 12:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non notable county counillor, no sigcov, Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Spleodrach (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could have been speedied. Deb (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would say clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN (and the WP position on county councillors in Ireland, who have very little real power, is well established) and also WP:GNG. I cannot comment without study on the inter-editor or CoI aspects, but I think we have a clear case of promo risk, especially in an election period. Basic searches do not suggest any easy improvement potential in the situation.SeoR (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wexford County Councillor. County councilmembers are not afforded the presumption of notability under WP:NPOL. Bearcat says it best about when a local elected official is able to demonstrate an article is appropriate. --Enos733 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES, and as follows. We almost always delete local officials as run of the mill and failing our particular standards. It's extremely unlikely that this hard-fought consensus will change before the upcoming 2020 election, for which he's a third party candidate. Sure, it's possible he could win, although my intuition doesn't carry me that far. Finally, he fails the prof test as a teacher at a vocational school. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2020 (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.