Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazel Bowyer
People do not get articles just for serving as chairpersons of local councils, the only other notability claim here is that she existed as a businessperson, and the article is not sourced even remotely close to well enough to make her encyclopedically notable for either of those things. I've already stripped the numerous references where the creator scanned a newspaper clipping and uploaded it to Commons — the problem being that scanning a newspaper clipping does not result in your own new "original" work that you're free to upload to a Wikimedia project under Creative Commons, because the newspaper still has a copyright on the ''content'' of those files, but (a) Commons ''cannot'' host non-free content, and (b) Wikipedia articles ''cannot'' be sourced to copyright-violating copies of content — but even if we set those problems aside and just assess them on their merits as sourcing, they still aren't GNG-building coverage anyway: one is just the caption to a photograph, one is her own self-created campaign ad, and one is just a very short article minimally verifying her election to the role, so they wouldn't have been enough even if they ''weren't'' unusable copyright violations.Politicians at the ''local'' level of office (city, town, county or district councils) are not entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically possible to verify that they existed as local officeholders — at that level of office, the notability test requires ''analysis'' of the ''significance'' of their work, not just proof that they existed. And after the removal of the copyright rips, there's nothing else left: five of the six remaining footnotes are |primary sources (raw tables of election results, the self-published websites of organizations or companies she's been directly affiliated with, etc.) that are not support for notability at all, and the only one that's actually a real media outlet just glancingly namechecks her existence a single time in the process of being ''about'' her ''son''.Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be sourced a lot better than anything the creator has shown
— User:Bearcat, 12:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (Wikipedia:No original research)