Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohan O'Neill-Stevens

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan O'Neill-Stevens

[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)

It is unusual to have a deputy mayor having a WP article. I don't think he meets WP:NPOL. Making comments in the media about your political stance is not WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Some coverage [1], others around being the youngest candidate and an LGBTQ individual, both of which are fine, but I don't see quite enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm somewhat surprised by this nomination. The article has six independent sources that deal with the subject at some depth. Why would that not be enough for GNG? Schwede 66 01:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this might just be WP:TOOSOON, but he doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and the coverage is just about him as a local politician. SportingFlyer T·C 12:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is some coverage cited here, but I don't think it's enough to satisfy GNG. There are thousands of people who meet the definition of being the youngest person to run for a specific office in a specific city, they aren't all going to be notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources meet WP:GNG from my perspective, even if they don't quite make it to WP:NPOL yet.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over the value of the sources in establishing notability. A review of them would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I too am confused here. Looks like an easy GNG pass. Am I missing something? -- asilvering (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2024 (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.