Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Canning (3rd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Stephen Canning}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Stephen Canning}})

Like the last two AFDs, he still fails WP:NPOL and the rest is just WP:BLP1E. There's no real in depth coverage and this is mostly just a giant puff piece leaning on a coatrack. (ie. {{tq|While in office he proposed innovative right-wing policies, such as preventing tax rises by scrapping Essex County Council’s offices.}} which is hardly innovative in Government much less from conservatives ;)) GRINCHIDICAE🎄 14:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

::{{strike|Delete}} impartial/could care less It took me about five minutes to write, I was drunk and high and I couldn't give a {{strike|toss}} monkeys whether WP keeps it or not.Ebbing and flowey (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

:::*Comment I note GRINCHIDICAE🎄 has left the project. I will implement their feedback in accordance with their last wishes and remove {{tq|While in office he proposed innovative right-wing policies, such as preventing tax rises by scrapping Essex County Council’s offices.}}.Ebbing and flowey (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

:Weak Keep: It is perhaps borderline in terms of notability for a biographical article, but in my view there is possibly enough coverage in news sources and articles written by Canning to suggest he's had more general notability / news coverage than most other local councillors or former councillors in the UK. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

::Articles written by Canning don't help to make him notable. We require sources written about him, in the third person, by other people. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delete notability comes from works created by other people, not from works created by the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Local government districts are not a level of political office that guarantees an article under WP:NPOL. Of the ten footnotes here, five are purely local coverage of the time that's simply expected to routinely exist for all local councillors whether they clear our notability standards or not, and thus are not GNG-bringers; two just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of not being about him, which does not help to make him notable; one is just a brief blurb verifying his initial election to council; and one is a piece written by him rather than about him. There's just one footnote here that's actually both substantively about him and from national media, and even that one is not about him doing anything significant enough to make him notable on those grounds per se. GNG, as always, is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who surpasses an arbitrary number" — it tests the sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, not just whether n>2 or not. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Too many articles are about local government; as per Bearcat, these don't give notability and are Run-of-the-Mill for local councillors. I don't anything particularly mature about this fellow in this media coverage. Not GNG, I do say. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2021 (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.