Vicki Howard: Park3r ( talk ) 04:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions .  05:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC) Strong delete none of the sources are indepth to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:NPOL .  LibStar ( talk ) 05:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep : SIGCOV arguably met.  Again, please, do some searches before these noms.  Even if not met, still a councillor at a major Australian metropolitan city.  Strongly arguable that this qualifies for WP:POLITICIAN; and failing that, still notable under GNG for the same reason.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 10:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NPOL grants automatic notability for national and state/provincial level, not local government.  LibStar ( talk ) 12:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not invoking WP:NPOL for automatic notability.  I am invoking SIGCOV on GNG for a presumption of notability; with alternative GNG argument based on the facts unique to this particular case.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 15:21, 12 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 ) 20:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Brisbane city council is the most powerful council in Australia.  Comparisons to 'every town' are nonsensical.  This council is exceptional in Australian politics.  There's your special case.  Jack4576 ( talk ) 16:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  01:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per Bearcat.  The article fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL is pretty clear in that local councillors aren't presumed notable.  It is true that Brisbane City Council is very large and powerful, but it is still a local council, similar to most others except size.  JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs ) 05:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No one is arguing that the article should be retained on the basis that councillors are inherently notable, or presumed notable What you are doing by saying "but it is still a local council" is arguing that councils are inherently not-notable.  This is a problem If you acknowledge that Brisbane City Council is very large and powerful, it follows that if SIGCOV has been met; this article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements Jack4576 ( talk ) 05:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You still don't give up on Brisbane councillors being inherently notable do you?  Now with the new line the Council is "powerful".  LibStar ( talk ) 09:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regardless of the “power” of the council there are 26 wards, which dilutes the “power” of each councillor.  In any case notability is WP:NOTINHERITED Park3r ( talk ) 05:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No one has argued for inherent notability Jack4576 ( talk ) 10:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then what’s the point of discussing the “power” of the council?  Park3r ( talk ) 21:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL .  Toddst1 ( talk ) 00:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete many passing mentions but no dedicated coverage.  Weakly sourced BLPs (especially politicians) are defamation targets.  — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 16:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per Bearcat.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 15:43, 23 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