Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Lavalette

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 Keep - while not every alderman is necessarily encyclopaedic, that does not mean that no alderman is encyclopaedic. Wily D 15:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lavalette

Subject is clearly not a notable political figure - fails Wikipedia policy for notability for politician which determine that only those politicians "who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." or are "(m)ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. I'm sorry, I know RESPECT are proud of their first councilor but Lavalette isn't notable. As a coda, the chap who removed my prod suggested he was notable as he received 37% of the vote in an Westminster election which he lost ... sorry that doesn't make you notable per the above. Bigdaddy1981 01:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless we're saying everyone who's ever been a town councilor should have an article on Wikipedia. It's not a 'statewide' office and failed candidates in Westminster elections aren't notable. Nick mallory 05:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree that local councillors are not notable generally. Michael Lavalette seems to have received enough press coverage, as well as the academic papers he has published to justify an article. I have added some external links and reference to show his notability as a very prominent member of RESPECT. Davewild 17:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that the references you provide (a good number of these are in SWP captive publications) allows him notability per WP:PROF as he isnt the originator of "an important new concept, theory or idea" or the author of "a significant and well-known academic work". Additionally, his news coverage (according to google.co.uk) is mostly in local Lancashire newspapers - which makes sense for Lancs town councilor. I stand by my deletion although its good to finally see some sources on one of the plethora of RESPECT/SWP bios. Bigdaddy1981 18:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He appears to have done more than most minor political figures, and although the WP:PROF angle is insufficient on its own, there is just about enough here - with his involvement in Respect - to make me reticent to delete it. Adrian M. H. 15:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originally founded this page. Lavalette is very well known on the left in Britain, and is probably as notable as most of the Central Committee of the SWP who almost all have articles. He has written several books, and edited an academic collection which is not associated with the SWP/Bookmarks. Yes he is just a local councillor and parliamentary candidate, rather than an MP, and these are not usually considered notable enough to have articles, however his academic works and position within RESPECT deserve note. (I am not a member of Respect or the SWP). incka 23:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the claim that Lavalette should have an article because he is as notable as other members of the SWP's central committee is an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not legitimate. I have yet to be convinced that he does not fail WP:PROF. Yes he has published papers, so have many thousands of other minor academics. The arguments in favour of keeping this chap seem to come down to: "sure he's obscure but its interesting to have articles on obscure people" or "he's as notable as other people with wikipedia articles" and "he should be up there because I like him". I still argue delete. Bigdaddy1981 00:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough. -- Earl Andrew - talk 09:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for factors mentioned by others plus his (inadvertent) role as catalyst in Galloway expulsion. Someone who, even by happenstance, plays a bit part in a notable incident can thereby be notable, such as Danny Escobedo. JamesMLane t c 04:05, 18 June 2007 (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.