Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraser Peck

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. ✗plicit 14:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Peck

[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)

Fails GNG - no significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources - and NPOL - "being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability" Paul W (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:NPROF or WP:NPOL; insufficient reliable source coverage to meet WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. He has a few decently cited publications towards WP:NPROF#C1 but I do not see enough, albeit complicated by "F Peck" being a common name. The prize is relevant, but I do not see it as reaching #C2. I don't find enough general coverage for other notability criteria. I think it is WP:TOOSOON, and he will perhaps pass the bar for notability in a few years. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local politician, fails WP:NPOL - sources are all of a local political nature. SportingFlyer T·C 06:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Others have given the reasons for which I believe it should be deleted.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can we just bundle all of the Common Councillor pages that were created in a short time of each other? It'd save a lot of time.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS that satisfies WP:GNG. ZachH007 (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2025 (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.