Kara Cook: Fails WP:NPOL Park3r ( talk ) 07:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Australia .  Park3r ( talk ) 07:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Another non notable councillor.  No in-depth coverage to meet WP:NPOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 07:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Took one search of "Kara Cook" and "Queensland" into Google to find three SIGCOV articles.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 10:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : SIGCOV from The Courier Mail means this subject must be presumed notable under GNG.  Plus, WP:BEFORE identified this , and this ; please do some basic searches prior to nominations.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 10:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did search before nominating, and coverage in local papers (largely after her resignation) doesn't surmount the fact that ward councillors in Australia don't meet WP:NSUBPOL or WP:NPOL , nor does it meet WP:GNG .  Park3r ( talk ) For starters, SIGCOV gives rise to a presumption of notability under GNG regardless of the criteria within WP:NSUBPOL or WP:NPOL .  Secondly, ward councillors of major metropolitan cities in Australia are notable.  This isn't the ward councillor of Epping, this is Brisbane, arguably the -most- notable city council in Australia; especially given the ramp it has provided to federal parliament for the Greens in recent years.  This is a notable council for its effect on Australia's political landscape, as any Australian with an interest in politics would know, (especially any Queenslander would know); and therefore its political actors are notable Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additionally, it is besides the point that the articles were written after her nomination.  Please explain how that goes to notability.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 11:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "ward councillors of major metropolitan cities in Australia are notable".  Absolutely false, again inventing notability criteria that doesn't exist.  wp:NPOL does not grant automatic notability to below state/provincial level.  This is consistently applied across Wikipedia for years.  LibStar ( talk ) 13:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not arguing under the criteria under wp:NPOL, I am arguing under GNG, as stated above.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 03:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please do not use NSUBPOL in this manner; it is meant to be a supplementary essay, not an AfD argument.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 12:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Brisbane City Council is already notable and safely has its own article.  However, no Wikipedia policy grants its councillors inherent notability.  It might even be the "most notable" in Australia, that still doesn't grant its councillors automatic notability.  You need to learn this fact.  LibStar ( talk ) 13:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not arguing for inherent notability of councillors.  I am not arguing for the automatic notability of councillors.  I have simply pointed out, that this candidate has SIGCOV; which generates a presumption that they are notable.  As that presumption is met, they must, under GNG guidelines, be regarded as notable under that policy.  In the alternative, even if SIGCOV is not met, the politics of the Brisbane City Council are unique enough of a subject that I think there is a fair argument that each of its councillors are notable due to the unique political circumstances that surround this particular contested political office.  Do you have any reasons to offer as to why this particular councillor is not GNG notable?  Jack4576 ( talk ) 13:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then why do you say "ward councillors of major metropolitan cities in Australia are notable" .  Have you now changed your mind?  LibStar ( talk ) 13:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think there is a strong argument that such people are notable; due to the prominence of their political roles; keeping in mind the context of Australian politics and the increasing political prominence of local councils in the national conversation.  (Particularly due to the relationship between major metropolitan councils and housing politics in this country)  Note I am not arguing that these things are inherently notable; I am arguing that there are real-world reasons we should recognise that they are; and I have pointed to those real-world reasons.  Anyway; all of the above is moot.  We have SIGCOV here and the only consideration of relevance is that under the guidelines; there is a presumption that this candidate is notable.  The only decision available, that being the case, is Keep Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia has established notability guidelines which are assessed in deletion discussions.  Your "real world reasons" is again aligning with your keep preferences and an attempt to assign notability based on new invented criteria that was not reflect Wikipedia community consensus.  I see that you are now trying to challenge notability guidelines on their talk page to shift them to align to your preferences.  As I said before, feel free to create your own online encyclopedia where all Brisbane councillors get an article.  LibStar ( talk ) 17:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, GNG is the applicable guideline, and under GNG; if SIGCOV is established the subject is deemed notable.  You still haven't engaged with the sources to explain why SIGCOV is not applicable here.  We're waiting.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 18:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you retract your statement "ward councillors of major metropolitan cities in Australia are notable"?  LibStar ( talk ) 00:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In certain circumstances (which are made out on the facts here) common sense would suggest that they are Jack4576 ( talk ) 03:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As stated on NPOL: "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 general notability guideline . " You keep referring to the special rules that apply to politicians LibStar , instead of actually doing what is required under the policy; which is to determine whether this person meets general notability standards under the general notability guidelines.  Here, the myriad of local press coverage amounts to SIGCOV.  (IMO)  You still have yet to engage with the guidelines as they have written, despite the length of this thread.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 03:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:NPOL doesn't apply for councillors, lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As stated in WP:NPOL for "Politicians and judges": "The following are presumed to be notable: •  Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." (emphasis mine).  Kara Cook clearly meets this test.  Furthermore, Cook also meets the notability standards within SIGCOV.  MarioBayo ( talk ) 05:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC) missing signature added MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello Mystery ! Voter.  Could you please clarify which sources you consider meets the threshold of "significant press coverage"?  Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This was me on my iPhone.  The Courier Mail article, this Brisbane Times article , and this Brisbane Times article .  Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oh, is MarioBayo another account of yours?  Apologies if I've misunderstood the situation.  Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, MarioBayo is not my account.  The amended signature should be for this account.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 03:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is all quite confusing.  I added the signature to the unsigned ! vote (beginning with "As stated in WP:NPOL for") that was written by MarioBaro: [12] .  So which post are you referring to as "That was me on my iPhone" please?  Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I thought I wrote that post and forgot to sign it.  Maybe I'm misremembering, I wrote a lot of similar comments yesterday.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 08:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Town or city councillors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and just having a handful of purely run of the mill local coverage in the local media is not sufficient to claim that they pass WP:GNG and are therefore exempted from NPOL — every councillor in every town or city always gets some local hits in the local media, so if that were how it worked then every councillor would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless because no councillor would ever be subject to it at all anymore.  So the bar for inclusion of local councillors is not "local media coverage exists", it's "they have an unusually large volume and depth and range of coverage, above and beyond what most other councillors could just as easily show, thus providing a credible reason why this person could legitimately be deemed a special case of much greater individual notability than the norm", which isn't what the sourcing on the table here is showing.  Bearcat ( talk ) 20:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No one is claiming this is 'just because they exist'.  Brisbane city council is the most powerful council in Australia.  There's your reason.  Any before anyone asks; yes, it is a more politically powerful council than Sydney or Melbourne comparatively.  You're not an Australian contributor, so you lack this context.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 16:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This argument is claiming WP:INHERITED notability, which is an erroneous approach.  Also, there seem to be 26 wards, which would “dilute” the inherent importance of individual councillors even if we were to accept your argument (which I don’t).  Park3r ( talk ) 18:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: delete