Deletion of Peter John

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: Existing source material is very weak; 6 from the council website referring to one of the councillors (basically a self-published source), 1 from the local Labour party about their councillor (another self-published source), 1 from a blog (Operation Black Vote) and 1 from a local community website of unknown reliability. The strongest source appears to be the Financial Times, but the reference is trivial (1 sentence out of the whole article, and much of that is a quote about somebody else). The article needs far more independent, non-trivial, |reliable sources to be sustainable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Oakshade argues, passionately and accurately, that the GNG trumps the subject's failure to meet the criteria of .  Indeed it does, but I'm missing the part where there's a single |reliable source discussing Mr. John in "significant detail," as the GNG requires.  Google News UK returns a dozen hits for the past year from the ''Southwark News'' (which its own website claims to be a borough weekly with a circulation of 9,660), each and every one of them a quote about some local political issue or another, but none ''about'' Mr. John
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:RS)