Deletion of Peter Kearney

Comment: I've seen a fair bit of coverage in independent sources which is about the individual, not about some faceless spokesman. http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3254012/Bigotry-row-was-fuel-to-the-fire-in-Hugh-Dallas-email-affair.html http://news.scotsman.com/news/39Weasel39-attack-on-Catholic-spokesman.6645563.jp http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/herald-view/more-still-requires-to-be-done-to-tackle-the-scourge-of-bigotry-1.1071753 http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3256032/Know-a-Pope-joke-Send-it-to-the-RC-Church.html http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/300955 http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/anti-catholicism-contributes-to-violence-against-clergy-scottish-church-spokesman-laments/ &c. If somebody's asserted notability has arisen in the course of their job, I think it would be very silly to expect notability to be established by sources which don't touch on their job - could we prove that Joseph Stalin was notable without any reference to Soviet leadership? I ''do'' have some concern about  though, if notability arises from current events rather than a previous election
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)