Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Pallett

:{{la|Steve Pallett}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Steve Pallett}})

He is a constable's officer which is the lowest rank of the elected police on Jersey. He is a football coach, he has failed twice to be elected to an obscure States Assembly of Jersey. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and Wikipedia:Notability unless I am missing something? Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• comment - Not unless such issues are more notable on a small island than they are from larger perspectives. I thought about nominating myself but decided to give him a run for his money as I didn't know enough about Jersey to decide either way. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I've changed the infobox to indicate that he is a Centenier, which is the highest rank of the honorary police (per our article). I can see from a source that he is (or was) a Centenier. I used the beginining date from the article (2008), although that's not sourced. I used 2011 as the ending date only because our article says the term is 3 years, but I'm really not sure what's accurate. In any event, the question now becomes whether a Centenier is inherently notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Interesting comments, but I'd still lean toward Delete, per nom. Notability on the island (which is itself still not entirely certain) might be comparable to notability as an alderman in a large community. Big fish in a small pond shouldn't alter the interpretation of notability guidelines. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• weak keep - looking at it, a Centenier seems quite noteworthy in Jersy. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment They're volunteers, bless 'em. Here's a BBC story about them [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-12111786], and more about their duties from the Citizen Advice Bureau of Jersey [http://www.cab.org.je/index.php?searchword=centeniers&ordering=§ionid1=7&searchphrase=all&Itemid=50&option=com_search]. Whatever honors they're due, they don't appear to satisfy Wiki guidelines for notability. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks for the first cite. I've added it to the article. I'm still unclear about when he was actually elected. The article says 2008, but I can't find a source for that. Plus, the so-called administration page for the parish seems to indicate that he may have been elected in 2010, but they don't explain what the date next to his name means, so I'm not sure.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• - they are elected - from our article - A Centenier is a senior member of the Honorary Police of Jersey. Centeniers are elected for a mandate of 3 years at a public election within the Parish. - perhaps upaid but as a wiki editor you gotta respect that.Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I do respect it personally. But as a Wikipedia editor I don't think it's a particularly noteworthy position. That aside, the bigger question is whether he's received substantial coverage in any capacity. All I can find is passing mention in several articles; my take is that the local press doesn't cover the election of a centenier as a major event. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - I am a Jersey resident, and I would support deletion on the basis that he is not a notable individual within the island. As has previously been stated, being a local official, or a failed electoral candidate doesn't make a person notable. I think the existence of this article is more about self-promotion of a wannabe politician. His past chairmanship of the Jersey Democratic Alliance is noted on that page. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC).
• Delete not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Relisting comment. I think this one could use just a little more input. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jersey Democratic Alliance and delete history. I was hoping for discussion on whether or not the subject passes WP:GNG but that didn't happen. However, the conflict of interest here is obvious. If a neutral editor wishes to write a balanced neutral article and can demonstrate notability, then he should be allowed to do so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I'll speak to notability if no one minds. I'll not make any claim to know Jersey, or Jersey politicians. But I've looked at the sources presented, and I did a bit of digging around myself. 1:33 in the half marathon? I've never done that. He seems like a pretty impressive individual. Now WP:POLITICIAN exists to help us to make presumption reasonable sources could be found, the section referring itself back to the significance of GNG. That section makes it clear that not meeting WP:POLITICIAN is no obstruction to meeting general notability. So the questions become: Significant coverage? By multiple independent sources? Should be simple...
• Significant Coverage? By what standard. Certainly by quantity, there's a fair amount of Jersey.com and BBC sources which mention or quote him. By quality, not so much. No detailed interviews, no profiles, no bios. Nothing directly detailing.
• By multiple independent sources? Sure. Nobody's going to complain about the two sources I've listed, are they? Two actual journalistic enterprises. Probably more offline sources exist.
• My conclusion: since we're not impressed with the sources we've found, what sources can be presumed to exist? Now we're back to WP:POLITICIAN. Could we reasonably expect to find sources if we looked more closely? WP:POLITICIAN allows us to presume not. BTW, the target article Ron suggests was written by the same (now dormant) editor. So was the article of the current head of the party. And the article on the opposition party. User:RichardColgate got around. BusterD (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

: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.