Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aubrey Murphy (mayor)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey Murphy (mayor)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local council politician. Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate (talk · contribs) whose primary work is to flood WP with articles on people from Newington College such as generic artists such as Ian Porter (commercial artist), members of social clubs such as Deuchar Gordon, and generic public servants such as Warwick Cathro.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsfvdf54gbb (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 02:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of rural Mayor, MBE, failed candidate nor Newington old scholar are sufficient claims to notability without other evidence of significance. None of the references or text make any wider claim to notability, and I cannot find mention of him in the biographical dictionaries or first few pages of Trove searches. The contemporary Victorian lawyer seems to have a better claim to fame from that. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I could quickly find only one TROVE I was reasonably sure of here, and while definitive is still essentially only a mention even if a key one. There looked like more, reporting routine mayoral activity, but I was not about to spend the time working through all the struggled OCRing. Aoziwe (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN and as per Scott Davis above, fails to meet notability standards on any other criteria mentioned in the article. -- Longhair\^talk 05:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable due to his membership of the Centre Party at a time of political turmoil in NSW. Whilst nobody from that party was elected it is an important part of the state's history. The Blue Mountains is not just a rural area but an important tourist precinct at the time he was mayor. He received his MBE because he held that role and in his first term was host to Queen Elizabeth on her first visit to Australia. Katoomba was an important stop on that tour. Castlemate (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I went and read the Centre Party article. While the main figures in that party got about 20% in their district, this fellow got 2% in his electorate. Clearly his political profile was highly insignificant to the locals. Further, the local councillor's job is to promote local small businesses, so simply lobbying for some ornamental things to be built is no evidence being above the run-of-the-mill council politician Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, and no other claim to notability; sources are nothing close to WP:GNG. Frickeg (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The strongest potential notability claim here is the MBE, but that's not an automatic inclusion freebie that would exempt a person from having to be more reliably sourced than this is — and exactly none of the sourcing here is adequate, as it's referenced entirely to primary sources like the city's own website and the private internal records of his childhood high school and a civil BMD records database. So I'd be willing to revisit this if somebody could actually show some evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media, and hold no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody's willing to put the necessary amount of work into sourcing it properly — but nothing here is enough in the absence of solid reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Is he looking more interesting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Castlemate (talk • contribs) 20:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope. I still only see two sources (Lithgow Mercury and Sydney Morning Herald...did you really think a Blogspot blog was going to help?) that count for beans toward passing WP:GNG, but (a) they're both short blurbs, not substantive coverage, and neither of them has actually added any substance to the article besides nominally reverifying the basic fact that he served as mayor. If all it took to make an article about a mayor keepable was just two blurbs in the local newspaper verifying the election results themselves, then we would always have to keep an article about every mayor of anywhere. The key to making a mayor of a place this size notable enough to be kept is to add enough substance and sourcing to demonstrate that he's significantly more notable than most other mayors of places this size — all mayors always get local coverage, so just showing a couple of pieces of local coverage isn't evidence that he's special. Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability requirements for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2017 (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.