Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Berry (politician)

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. Those advocating keep have supplied sources and the best arguments. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Berry (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Doesn't meeet wp:politician. A perennial candidate but has never held office and has had very little media attention. The only evidence of him being a "political commentator" are blog posts and his Youtube channel with 161 subscribers. Most of the article is referenced to blog posts, press releases, and his Youtube channel. -- haminoon (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't agree that Berry has had very little media coverage. While there are a fair few blogposts and press releases referenced, I counted and the majority of references are articles from news outlets on him over years, many of which he is the sole subject of the article. Nexus000 (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG (just) in my view. He's enough of a crazy to attract a lot of media attention. He was the highest-profile New Zealander affected by the Twitter purge earlier this year (see here). In 2018, his Northcote motorway proposal gained him a lot of attention. None of the news coverage used as references goes into biographical details, but many are more than just passing mentions and I shall list those here:

• Nov 2013
• Mar 2016
• Aug 2017
• Aug 2017
• May 2018
• May 2018
• May 2018; in-depth interview
• May 2018; short profile
• May 2018; opinion piece about Berry
• July 2018

• There isn't any media coverage from his 2013 mayoralty run that's part of the article. He came third, which surprised everyone and is not a shabby result for running in Auckland. So there will be sources from then that aren't part of the article yet. Not that it matters, but Berry would be a member of parliament right now if he had not pulled out of the 2020 general election; he was #9 on their list and they won 10 list seats; he pulled out in July 2020 for health reasons. Schwede66 01:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While he does fail NPolitician, he does pass GNG in my opinion and as outlined very well above by Schwede66 JW 1961 Talk 16:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove and agree with haminoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burned Toast (talk • contribs) 02:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Looks like it does meet WP:GNG. Social media followers usually are not reliable indicators of notability. I also do not see much self-published references that are mentioned by the nominator. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 12:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this smells of a paid article/COI and is overly promotional. All of the coverage, including the coverage above, is routine and political. If this is kept, we absolutely have to clean up the promotional links. SportingFlyer T·C 13:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I made this page. No paid article or COI. I thought having an elaborate 'external links' would mean a good resource on the subject. But I've done it for a few articles and people have since removed the links, so I won't continue doing it. Happy for a cleanup if the tone isn't right. Nexus000 (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2021 (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.