Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippa Roe
I wouldn't say that the nub of  is verifiability. Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for something to warrant an article on it.  makes this distinction between "how suitable a ''topic'' is for ''its own article or list''" and "Wikipedia's policies regarding content" (''i.e.'' "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research|No original research, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Biographies of living persons"). POL|Notability guidelines for politicians confer notability on "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature"; Ms Roe does not meet any of those criteria. Leading a '''borough council, one of 33 in London''', is below the "sub-national" threshold. The guidelines then go on to include "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." and notes "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected ''candidate'' for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." In other words, Ms Roe needs to meet , which means ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". As I say above, I only see three articles specifically about Ms Roe and all three relate to her (since failed) candidacy. The idea that candidates are better covered on an election article stems from . That said, your work on the article has certainly moved it closer to notability and I concur that leading a borough council is of some significance
— User:Bondegezou, 13:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:N||WP:NPOL||WP:GNG||WP:1E (Wikipedia:Notability)