Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire Holland (politician)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Claire Holland (politician)}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Claire Holland (politician)}})

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, councillors at the borough level are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of significant reliable source coverage about their work that enables us to write a substantial article about their political impact -- but not a single one of the 22 footnotes here represents proper third-party coverage about Claire Holland in media of record: 17 of them are primary sources that are not support for notability (e.g. the self-published websites of the council she serves on and/or her political party); three more completely fail to mention Claire Holland's name at all, and instead are here just to tangentially verify stray facts about other people; and the remaining two come from a minor community hyperlocal WordPress blog rather than a reliable or WP:GNG-worthy media outlet.
Simply existing as a borough councillor is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt the councillor from having to pass GNG on significantly better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Holland isn't just a borough councillor. She's also (i) the head of the council, ie what in other cities with various administrative centres might be a mayor (ii) chair of the cross-council association for all of London, and (iii) a member of the executive committee for the UK Labour Party. The article appears to (now?) have sufficient reputable secondary sources. (There also appeared to be additional references to her in the Guardian and the Evening Standard).ash (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

::Being head of the council still isn't a notability freebie. A head of a borough council, just the same as any other borough councillor, still has to pass WP:NPOL #2 on a lot more reliable source coverage about her work, supporting a lot more substance about the impact of her work, than this article is showing at all. Even mayors don't get instant notability freebies just for being mayors if they haven't been shown to pass NPOL #2, so why would a councillor get more leeway than a mayor does? Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:::She's also the chair of the cross-council association for all of London, a member of the executive committee for the UK Labour Party, and a spokesman for the Local Government Association. ash (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

::::None of which are WP:NPOL-passing levels of office, still. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Less notable people: Ros Jones, Brenda Dacres, Peter Taylor (mayor)

:::I think these Mayors are less notable than Cllr Claire Holland, who has national coverage from The Guardian, The BBC, The Independent and The Standard and represents all 32 London Boroughs at London Councils as well as being a member of the Nation Executive Committee of the The Labour Party, where key leadership decisions are made. Diogo Costa (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and England. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:Keep: Holland isn't just a local councillor, she is Chair of London Councils which represents all local authorities in London including The City, she sits on the highest body of the national British Labour Party, the National Executive Committee. She was also invited by the British Deputy Prime Minister to be part of the Local Government Leaders' Council. She has been mentioned in newspapers and online articles from the Guardian and the BBC. Diogo Costa (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

:Keep: Holland, in her capacity has leader of the Council, has met with notable figures such as Prince William. This being made news into news outlets such as "The Independent" or "Yahoo News UK". GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree with Bearcat and the citations presented are not enough Yolandagonzales (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Citations of the UK's reputable sources such as The Guardian, The BBC, The Independent and The Standard isn't enough? Diogo Costa (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: Local politician, does not meet WP:NPOL. And meeting Prince William doesn't make her notable. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I believe she meets the following criteria: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
• :Major London political figure, with significant press coverage. Diogo Costa (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Significant press coverage mean in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. None of the sources provides in depth coverage, just passing mentions. She isn't a major political figure, she's a nobody. I doubt you can find many people who have heard of her, even in Lambeth. London Councils is an unelected talking shop of local politicians. Again, you'd be hard pressed to find many people who are even aware of its existence. London Councils isn't unique either - there are many other of these talking shops for local politicians. The District Councils' Network and County Councils Network, for example, have more members than London Councils and cover a much larger population. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Keep:

:Meets WP:NPOL Criteria – Holland’s role as Chair of London Councils extends beyond a typical local councillor. London Councils represents all 32 boroughs plus the City of London, influencing policies affecting millions. This is a significant leadership role at a regional level, aligning with WP:NPOL’s recognition of politicians who hold "substantial power at a national or sub-national level."

:National Influence & Recognition – As a member of the Labour Party's National Executive Committee (NEC), she holds a position that helps shape the policies of one of the UK's two major political parties. This goes beyond local politics and directly influences national-level decision-making, reinforcing her notability.

:Independent Reliable Coverage – Holland has been covered by respected national and international media outlets like The Guardian, BBC, The Independent, and Yahoo News UK. These sources are independent and reliable, providing evidence of sustained media attention, which satisfies Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (WP:GNG).

:Invited by the Deputy Prime Minister – Her inclusion in the UK government’s Local Government Leaders’ Council highlights her political significance at a national level, demonstrating recognition by senior government figures beyond just the Labour Party.

:Comparable Politicians Have Pages – Other council leaders with similar levels of influence have Wikipedia pages, such as Ros Jones, Rokhsana Fiaz, and Paul Dennett. Consistency in Wikipedia’s application of WP:NPOL would suggest that Holland’s role merits inclusion as well.

:Public Engagement with National Figures – Her meetings with prominent figures, including Prince William, being reported in major news outlets, further indicate that she has a public profile beyond her borough.

:

:Clare Holland is not just a local politician but a significant political figure with influence across London and within the national Labour Party. Her leadership role, media presence, and recognition by high-level government officials meet Wikipedia’s criteria for notability, making her page well-justified. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Duplicate !vote stricken. Owen× ☎ 13:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I trust if you're going to delete Holland, you'll also delete Ros Jones, Brenda Dacres, Chris Cooke, Rokhsana Fiaz, Paul Dennett, and Peter Taylor too? ash (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• :If you want them deleted, please open a nomination request and we'll review them. Each will be evaluated as we are doing for this article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep While "{{xt|Being head of the council still isn't a notability freebie}}" is a reasonable opinion to hold, it doesn't follow that the article must be deleted; indeed WP:INVALIDBIO suggests redirecting as an option - although that talks about relationships with people, I don't see why it can't also hold for relationships with organisations and political bodies. Considering redirecting as an alternative to deletion, there are multiple possible targets, including primarily London Councils and National Executive Committee (Labour Party). Since there's no preferred redirect target, it implies the article should be kept as a standalone entry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:

• The aforegiven claims that this person {{tq|has national coverage from The Guardian, The BBC, The Independent and The Standard}} and {{tq|has been covered by respected national and international media outlets like The Guardian, BBC, The Independent}} turn out to be disingenuous. The {{harvnb|Williams|2017}} and the {{harvnb|Walker|2021}} sources from The Guardian turn out to be a mention in a list of people and no mention at all, respectively. The {{harvnb|Mendonça|Stanley|2025}} source from the BBC turns out to be a quote on a political issue said by this person, not something about this person. The {{harvnb|Jones|2023}} source from The Independent has William, Prince of Wales sitting in a room with a group including this person. And both of the {{harvnb|Burford|2024}} articles from The Standard turn out to again be political-topic quotes by this person rather than stuff about this person. Checking more of the sources reveals more of the same. The only halfway decent source in the lot is {{harvnb|Cobb|2024}} and even that does not go into detail on this person's career and give anything like support for a biography of this person's life and works.

  This biography has been synthesized from inferences made from list mentions and quote attributions and some obvious warmed-over press releases like {{harvnb|Goodwin|2024}}. That's not adequate sourcing for a biographical article in an encyclopaedia, and I do not support keeping a badly sourced synthetic biography, where the person has actually not had xyr life and works covered in sources, just because we cannot think of a redirect. That's madness, and totally contrary to 22 years and 9 days of policy. DiogoTheCoder and GrandDukeMarcelo your professed standards of biographical sourcing and false representations of sources are appalling. Shape up! Delete.

  Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_kind.
• If thats the case, then we should delete the other articles referring to English Mayors, which have even less sources. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Only if they too are synthetic like this, which is not a given. Biographies of living persons are based upon reliable and in-depth sourcing, no ifs, no buts, no maybes. There's no if-A-gets-an-article-so-should-B, neither is there the reverse, in deletion policy. Whether a mayor gets a biographical article is wholly dependent from the sourcing available for a biography, which is not going to be the same for everyone. For more details, see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. Uncle G (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I appreciate the concerns raised about sourcing, and as someone newer to Wikipedia editing, I’m keen to understand and follow the best practices for biographical articles. However, I think some important context is missing here.
• :# Politicians are often quoted rather than profiled – This is especially true for local government figures, where coverage tends to focus on their statements and decisions rather than in-depth biographies. This does not mean they are not notable, especially when they hold a significant office within English local government.
• :# Comparative treatment of similar articles – As pointed out earlier in this discussion, other articles on local authority leaders exist with fewer or similarly structured sources, yet they are not nominated for deletion. Consistency in application of notability guidelines is important.
• :# The sources do confirm a public role – While some sources may primarily include quotes, they do establish that the subject is a known figure in their field. The BBC, Guardian, Independent, and Standard all acknowledging the individual suggests they meet the Wikipedia:Notability, even if the coverage isn’t a detailed career retrospective.
• :# Improving rather than deleting – If the concern is about the depth of the coverage, a discussion on how to improve sourcing and structure would be more productive than outright deletion. Perhaps there are additional sources that haven’t been considered yet.
• :I’m open to constructive suggestions on strengthening the article, but I do think outright deletion would be disproportionate given the precedent of similar articles Diogo Costa (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• :*You definitely should be less open to looking like an LLM. ☺ Shape up; stop doing LLM-style arguments (Beware that LLMs spout nonsense.); read policy on content, deletion, sourcing, and notability; and put it into practice, especially for biographies of living persons (but ideally everywhere). Uncle G (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• :*:Be Kind https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_kind and do not make personal attacks Wikipedia:No personal attacks GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• :*::{{u|GrandDukeMarcelo}}, I don't see any personal attacks or civility violations here. {{u|Uncle G}} is giving you useful tips on how to get your point across effectively on content discussion pages like this one. Ignore those tips at your peril. Responding with repeated links to a policy page on Simple English Wikipedia doesn't help your case here. Also, please limit yourself to one !vote per AfD. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 17:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• :*:::Saying things like "Shape up" or "Your are looking like an LLM" or "your professed standards of biographical sourcing and false representations of sources are appalling." are highly problematic and border the realm of online Bullying and passive-aggressiveness. I hope this is retracted. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• :*:::I don’t think it’s personal attacks, but it’s quite an aggressive tone, the last sentence:
• :*:::your professed standards of biographical sourcing and false representations of sources are appalling.  Shape up!
• :*:::I don’t think this is constructive feedback. Diogo Costa (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• :*:Keep: Claire Holland Meets Wikipedia’s Notability Guidelines for Politicians
• :*:This article should be retained and improved upon because Claire Holland meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for politicians and fulfills the general notability guidelines (GNG).
• :*:1. Notability of Politicians WP:POLITICIAN
• :*:According to Wikipedia:
• :*:“Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or first-level sub-national office, or have been members of a national legislature, are presumed to be notable.”
• :*:Claire Holland has been the Leader of Lambeth Council since 2021, which governs a major London borough with over 300,000 residents.
• :*:She was elected Chair of London Councils in 2024, a role that coordinates policies across all London boroughs.
• :*:In 2024, she joined the Labour Party’s National Executive Committee, a governing body of the UK's main opposition party.
• :*:Since the Leader of a major local authority in the UK is a first-level sub-national office, Holland qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN.
• :*:2. General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG
• :*:Wikipedia requires:
• :*:“Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.”
• :*:Claire Holland has been covered in major national and regional publications, including:
• :*:The Guardian
• :*:BBC News
• :*:The Evening Standard
• :*:Local Government Chronicle
• :*:These sources demonstrate significant and independent coverage, meeting WP:GNG.
• :*:3. Verifiability and Reliable Sources WP:V & WP:RS
• :*:Wikipedia states:
• :*:“Articles should be based on reliable, published sources.”
• :*:Holland's career is documented in reliable news sources, ensuring the article meets WP:V and WP:RS requirements.
• :*:Conclusion
• :*:Holland holds a high-level political position WP:POLITICIAN.
• :*:She has received independent coverage WP:GNG.
• :*:The article is verifiable with reliable sources WP:V & WP:RS.
• :*:This page should not be deleted and should be improved with additional sources if necessary. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Delete: I looked at the sources, and although most of them are reliable, none provide WP:SIGCOV. Per Uncle G, this seems disingenuous. There's not enough coverage to support a standalone article and nowhere to redirect, so I think delete is the best option.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• I listed two suitable articles above to redirect to. What's the problem with both of them? Indeed, Uncle G's essay, quoted above, also says "{{xt|That a subject is non-notable does not mean that verifiable information about a subject should be excluded from Wikipedia.}}" In my view, Claire Holland is as notable as Danny Beales (AfD) was before he was elected as an MP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Then what did you mean by keeping the article because there's no redirect target? Speaking only for myself, I definitely cannot agree with that outcome. If there's anything that the Seigenthaler incident taught, it is that biographies of politicians should be held to the highest standards. I think that you should explain to us why you thought that neither target cut the mustard. ☺ I trust your evaluation that neither target was good. I can see this person's name on both pages, badly wikilinked on one, but there are no redirects for the other namechecked people there, and presumably the search tool is good enough for finding them nonetheless. Special:Search/Anthony Okereke for example. Uncle G (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't think I meant myself clear, I meant the preferred redirect target was ambiguous, and also that I think this article is a very marginal case for deletion. Regarding BLPs, the content of this article is far better than [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebecca_Loos&diff=prev&oldid=801557689 some things I have encountered]. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• :How did you get that from what he said? He simply challenged the claim that there is "nowhere to redirect" it to. ~~~ ash (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - Sufficient sourcing for a GNG pass; head of the organization of councils and membership on the Labour Party NEC indicates a politician of national stature. Carrite (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.