Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Murphy (Australian 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 delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Murphy (Australian politician)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Local politician fails

Park3r (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Park3r (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep: easily able to find SIGCOV after a basic Google search; but arguably it was already met beforehand. This person is presumed notable under the guidelines as a result.

Regardless, being a councillor at a major Australian metropolitan city meets GNG.

This is the third spurious nomination regarding Brisbane city council today; with minimal/no effort fulfilling WP:BEFORE. (see #1, #2)

Did they forget to collect your bins this week or something

Park3r? Jack4576 (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Insults aside, it's been tagged since 2020 for notability. As per the content guidelines: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." Also local councillors don't meet

Park3r (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

There is literally SIGCOV embedded within the article as it stands already. Here, and here.

This is not a

WP:MUSTBESOURCES

argument. Pfft.

These are not ordinary local councillors, these are local politicians for a major Australia metropolitan city.

WP:NSUBPOL isn't Wikipedia policy, WP:POLITICIAN

is, so I don't know why you'd bother linking that.

Clearly a strong argument is available that this person meets WP:POLITICIAN. Would appreciate it if somebody more familiar with WP's policies could weigh in here. Your pattern of multiple AfD's today without basic WP:BEFORE brings into question any pre-existing presumptions as to good faith. Jack4576 (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Local papers cover local politics. I did a WP:BEFORE and felt that none of the sources rose to the level where the subjects met

Park3r (talk

)

so you're acknowledging there is SIGCOV at the local level. What's your point? is it that councillors at major metropolitian Australian cities are inherently non-notable? Even if SIGCOV is visible, just because that coverage is local ? Where do you expect local politicians to be covered for notability purposes. The national news? is that what you're looking for? Jack4576 (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

" is it that councillors at major metropolitian Australian cities are inherently non-notable?" Absolutely false. Local councillors do get articles if they meet

WP:BIO. However, local councillors whether it be Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne get no inherent notability on Wikipedia. This has been consistent across Wikipedia for years. You are again inventing your own notability criteria to meet your keep desire.LibStar (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not making an argument for inherent notability.

I am making an argument that SIGCOV is established, and therefore, application of GNG guidelines requires that notability be assumed. Jack4576 (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly,

WP:BIO, or WP:POLITICIAN

; there still may be real-world reasons for nevertheless recognising that the subject is notable in an encyclopedic sense.

I have outlined my arguments as to why. (1) this is a major metropolitan city, (2) this is a particularly prominent political battleground in Australian politics, (3) this is a particularly well-covered political contest in Australian political media. Need more ?

Note, again, I am not arguing that any of the above reasons give rise to inherent notability, I am making an argument that this subject, in this case meets the GNG threshold. Feel free to disagree. I'm curious to hear what the non-deletionists think. Jack4576 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While some of the sources need to be removed, like the one from his own website and this Courier Mail article which is permanently dead, some of the news articles does seem to meet the requirements of
WP:GNG. It is a bit weird how Brisbane Times seems to be the only newspaper to cover the subject in depth, but it does seem sufficient for keeping the article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I would argue that the coverage you refer fails to meet

Park3r (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Town or city councillors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and just having a handful of purely
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) 20:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per Bearcat. Routine coverage in local media that doesn't meet threshold for
WP:NPOL. There is no inherent notability from being a councillor for Brisbane. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 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! 10:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The persons above claiming "there is no inherent notability of being a Brisbane councillor" are woefully ignorant of the fact that Brisbane is the most powerful city council in Australia. Yes, more powerful than Melbourne or Sydney's.

The fact that non-Australians feel its appropriate to weigh in and dismantle articles that document Australian politics in a NPOV manner is a disgrace; and frankly a perfect example of this website's existing policies not being fit for purpose.

I'm not even going to bother justifying the above in terms of policy. Any editor that has voted to delete this article, or any of the other Brisbane city council articles; lack perspective on the importance of this website as a source of lay information.

I'd like to add another reason for my Keep vote above: IAR Jack4576 (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane City Council may be "powerful" but

WP:NPOL does not grant inherent notability to city councillors. Feel free to start your own online encyclopedia where you won't encounter "this website's existing policies not being fit for purpose". In fact you could make all Brisbane city councillors automatically notable. LibStar (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Comments about starting another encyclopaedia are disingenuous at best Jack4576 (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? You are obviously unhappy with a lot of Wikipedia practices in particular application of notability guidelines, you've spent a good part of the last 2-3 weeks soaking up the community's valuable time with your constant arguing in AfDs and RfCs and even a RfA. Having your own encyclopaedia may be the best, you could even ban non Australian editors from commenting on Australian AfDs. LibStar (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop casting aspersions Jack4576 (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can look at your edit history of the last 2-3 weeks...there's loads of evidence. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One could look at years worth of yours also Jack4576 (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a response. A number of people have commented on your behaviour of the last 3 weeks. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and 'a number' of people have been complimentary Jack4576 (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation in this AfD, (among other recent examples) demonstrates your willingness to cast 'delete' votes without first running basic searches on subjects

Glass houses, stones, etcetera Jack4576 (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least I don't

WP:BLUDGEON other votes endlessly like you are doing here in this AfD. LibStar (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh replying to arguments is

WP:BLUDGEON now ? Give me a break. Jack4576 (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It's maybe a bit disingenuous to call that disingenuous. You literally are telling people to find you at Jack's wiki. Valereee (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. The sources are quite ROUTINE-ish and fail to demonstrate notability. Nythar (💬-🍀) 17:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find the notion that only Australians have the pre-requisite knowledge to comment on Australian topics, and thus that non-Australians should not comment on articles about Australian topics, not only really gross and completely beyond the pale, but also counter to the entire point of Wikipedia as a global collaborative body. Curbon7 (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. LibStar (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying non-Australians can’t comment on Australian topics

I’m remarking that it’s unsurprising that non-Australians would lack the context necessary to properly assess notability

Its yet another manifestation of how the legalistic interpretation of this site’s policies is to its detriment; an example of the manifest absurdity in which deletionists go about their activities Jack4576 (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop casting aspersions. Wikipedia has been operating with its ever-evolving guidelines for more than twenty years; this isn't some sort of tragedy. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will not refrain from criticising manifestly absurd deletion decisions

“change has occurred for a while now” “this isn’t so bad”

What’s your point?

Jack4576 (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV does not mean "sources exist"; it means that a source demonstrates significant coverage. The sources that currently exist in that article have titles like "nominates new councillor" and "ward councillor Ryan Murphy takes Schrinner's place" and "LNP welcomes three new BCC faces" and "John Campbell loses Doboy in Brisbane council election" and "Council civic cabinet reshuffle", along with other non-SIGCOV entries and lists <-- these resemble
WP:Run of the mill articles published routinely (of which very few focus entirely on Ryan Murphy himself). These routinely published articles do not indicate notability. Local newspapers will obviously publish articles about local elections and the like, yet since we lack a provision making councilors inherently notable (unlike larger-scale election nominees), such articles may be deleted on the basis outlined previously (i.e., the lack of SIGCOV). You might not agree with that, but that does not mean our deletion !votes are "manifestly absurd." I suggest you tone down your language a bit. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
"Closer look at LNP council candidates" contains in-depth coverage of the candidate here. The rest of the articles might not amount to SIGCOV individually but assessed collectively I think the threshold is met here

Its not good enough to legalistically refer to policy like "councillors are not inherently notable". That argument does not address that Brisbane is an exceptional case; exceptional because of its unique positioning in Australian politics. It is (1) the most powerful metropolitan city council in Australia, and (2) one of the most contested, and most publicised battlegrounds for emerging politicians for Australia's three largest political parties. The outcome of a Brisbane city council vote was discussed last week in a federal parliamentary debate involving Max Chandler-Mather

I do think, in the above context, a decision to delete is manifestly absurd and contrary to Wikipedia's values operating at their best. I concede that (1) non-Australian editors might lack the perspective needed to come to that conclusion, which is certainly no fault of theirs, and does not disentitle them from participation, and (2) this may be more an indication of defective and legalistic Wikipedia policies than any issue with a particular editor.

The outcome of the vote being delete would be manifestly absurd; but such an outcome is not be a reflection on a particular editor; and is merely a reflection upon this website's incumbent consensus Jack4576 (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Had you read through the "Closer look at LNP council candidates" source you mentioned above, you would have seen that this was its only mention of Ryan Murphy: "At just 25, Ashley Higgins could snatch Doboy ward councillor Ryan Murphy’s title as the youngest Brisbane councillor if elected in 2016." Other than that, there's not a single other mention of him anywhere in that article. And no, SIGCOV is not determined collectively; each and every source needs to be assessed individually. Nythar (💬-🍀) 16:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying here because I want to keep my thoughts all in one thread. Jack4576, I find your
cabal. Curbon7 (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Noted and I respectfully disagree. Feel free to raise this on my talk page. Jack4576 (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The magical
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Sources do exist; in fact we have SIGCOV here. The commenters above appear to think that despite those sources, the fact this person is a city councillor means that the article should be deleted regardless

Frankly, this speaks to a deficiency in those editor’s abilities to parse Australian sources; probably stemming from a lack of knowledge about local Australian politics

They are entitled to their view, but their comments should be accorded minimal weight. I note that the extent of their arguments so far is “councillors are not inherently notable” without acknowledging the arguments that (1) SIGCOV has been met here, and (2) this council is an exceptional case; as any Australian with a basic knowledge of contemporary domestic politics would be equipped to know

Perhaps it would be best if the trigger happy deletionists could actually address those arguments; or actually engage with the argument that Brisbane is a special case; instead of VAGUEWAVING about ‘inherent notability’ - an strawman issues that nobody here is actually attempting to rely upon.

I reiterate: non-Australian wikipedians are entitled to their view; but the fact that so many non-Australian deletionists are clamouring to delete multiple Brisbane city council articles recently is disturbing.

It quite seriously in my view, causes me to question (1) their competence to participate in AfD discussions on this site, and, (2) their alignment with Wikipedia’s founding values, and (3) whether Wikipedia’s policies are fit for purpose

It is a very serious thing to be deleting a useful public complication of information for the politicians of Australia’s most contentious local government Jack4576 (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
compilation* Jack4576 (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a reason for keeping. Casting aspersions on non Australian editors is not helpful. Similarly Jack, should you now refrain from commenting on non Australian AfDs to be consistent? LibStar (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:AADD is not policy.

Yes, certainly, I would refrain from advocating delete on non-Australian AfDs out of an abundance of caution Jack4576 (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And keep as well? LibStar (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the arguments for deletion. If its a local perspective that has provided assurances regarding a lack of notability, sure

WP's own policies discuss the cautious approach that ought to be taken toward deletion Jack4576 (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliably sourced, non-trivial coverage [1][2][3][4]. We have no guideline that I'm aware of that determines notability based on the perceived clout of the position held. So the councillor of a major city qualifies based on coverage, not rank.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd and 4th sources do not demonstrate significant coverage; they barely touch on him, and lack any information on him biographically and are very short in length. The 1st source seems to be
WP:ROUTINE coverage of a local election that does not stand out, lacking almost any focus on him as a person, containing only a short review of that election with a few of his comments. The 3rd source is paywalled. Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Interesting contrast with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Howard ongoing for another Brisbane councilor. I !voted delete that article due to weaker coverage.

I encourage the closing admin to check out the refs I listed above on 21 May. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Bearcat, and with Nythar's above assessment of sources that were stated to contain significant coverage, which, in fact, they do not (discounting the paywalled source).—Alalch E. 22:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
why are you discounting a paywalled source ? Jack4576 (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing anything but
WP:ROUTINE coverage. (And there's a good reason to discount a paywalled source: if we can't read it, we have no way to verify the depth or the nature of the coverage. For all we know it's an interview of the subject, which cannot be used to verify the notability of the subject.) Ravenswing 02:07, 22 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.