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. There are reasonable and rational arguments on both sides and these appear to me to be policy-based. The disagreement is regarding how much weight to give to the various sources and whether they are in-depth enough. This is a matter to be determined by consensus and I have no reason to go past the roughly equal numbers on either side. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Cooper (politician)[edit]

Oliver Cooper (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Local councillor in London who led the Conservatives on Camden Council. From WP:Notability (people): "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I'm not convinced that Cooper meets the criteria. See also Claire-Louise Leyland.

His Wikipedia entry was discussed in a local newspaper, the Camden New Journal, on 17 March 2022, in the Peeps column:

Something Wiki this way comes

NOT every leader of a council opposition is famous enough for an entry for a page on Wikipedia but Oliver Cooper, who heads the seven-strong Tory group in Camden, has been considered eminent enough.

The site, which is open for editing by all, now provides a list of his achievements, including “rebuking Sadiq Khan for misusing crime statistics” and “intervening and stopping Islamaphobic violence on the London Underground”.

There's a PDF of the page here.--TrottieTrue (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TrottieTrue (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Delete - WP Common Outcomes states “Municipal and other local politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics” though they can be for other reasons. Cooper does not seem to be notable enough for Wikipedia with news being related to a small period of time and more about the event. Encyloedit (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - whilst going through the sources it's hard to find sigcov, per WP:BASIC "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Mujinga (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I wrote this page. On the page which you have linked too it says "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. I set out to write a page for every leader and opposition leader in Camden but I quickly realised that not all of them have received sufficient press coverage. eg the current opposition leader Tom Simon or Giovanni Spinella who was briefly opposition leader between Leyland and Cooper. However Leyland and especially Cooper have received major media coverage including in the national press that goes far beyond the average leader of the opposition on a council this size (almost 300,000 people). I do not think it is credible to say that the coverage is about the event in some of the cases eg Cooper intervening in islamophobic attack is not notable for the attack which sadly happens EVERY DAY in this city but notable because of who he is, ie someone notable. Same with the Times articles about his time as Tory Youth chairman which are about him ("Youth leader stood down..." and "How tougher times have bred..." are about him personally). Fosse1884 (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don’t think the GNG are met. Do we want or need articles for every opposition leader on councils with a large population, even in London? If it was a Camden Wikipedia then the articles would be fine.—TrottieTrue (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically said above that I didn't create one for every opposition leader as I had originally envisaged precisely because I realised that most don't meet notability requirements eg Tom Simon, Giovanni Spinella, Anna Stewart. However Cooper and Leyland has got loads and loads of media coverage, including in the national press and they do not have articles just because they were opposition leaders but because they were NOTABLE opposition leaders who clearly meet the requirements based on their media coverage.

Several of the national news articles are primarily about Cooper and were only written because of who he is eg the Times articles re his time as Tory Youth chair, the Metro article re the attack on the Muslim women. However even the others demonstrate notability. According to WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Every national article linked to here is 'more than trivial' except the Guardian article (which I will now remove as on reflection it doesn't say a lot about him and it is an opinion article). In every other one Cooper is either the subject of the article, the source of the article, or a major protagonist in the events that received national coverage. And the sheer extent of Camden's local press's obsession with Cooper has to be seen to be believed as they have written about him every single week for years and years. Based on media coverage Camden has not had as notable an opposition leader in decades and I doubt many councils have so there is no risk that it just ends up as open season for all counsellors.

I will note that there are many others that are not included that mention him in passing. That is not what we're talking about. Fosse1884 (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looking at the first 12 references, ref 9 and 10 are non-rs, they are very poor. They are all pre-election stuff and don't manage real secondary coverage. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. The Metro, Express and The Sun are non-RS. Not reliable sources. There is lots of sound-bites but its not-indepth and there lots of non-inherited senior tory folk who are notable, but he insn't. scope_creep^Talk 15:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears there has been a bit of canvassing to this AfD. Dekimasuよ! 02:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (I have not been canvassed) as per Fosse1884 and Mujinga. The sources taken together are adequate to support notability. Ingratis (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the sources have Cooper as the primary subject of the article, and given that he fails WP:NPOL, we would need multiple such sources to validate an article. None of the keep voters are even claiming significant coverage with specific evidence, because there isn't any. Fails WP:SIGCOV for lack of sources that address the subject "directly and in detail".4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None? He is the primary subject of several of them. "Youth leader stood down..." is primarily about him in the Times. "Camden Tory leader intervenes..." is primarily about him in the Metro. "How tougher times have bred..." is primarily about him in the Times. "Rainbow Tories..." is a profile of him in the Evening Standard. None of the articles at all are trivial mentions and his notability is clearly not connected to a single event as all of those are in relation to different events and are in different years (2011, 2013, 2015, 2019).

That is also just national coverage. If you look at the pretty incessant coverage of him in the local press it is clear that he is more notable and prominent than any other opposition leader, including Claire-Louise Leyland whose article has rightly been agreed to be kept. See this https://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/search/%22Oliver%20Cooper%22

Very few local politicians would be described as 'prominent' in a big-selling book by their political opponents as Cooper was, nor quoted in a GCSE textbook as he was. Fosse1884 (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - Essentially, there's some info about his being elected council member, but then he ran again and was defeated. Unless we have a rule that being a council member gets you in, it's not enough. There's very little bio info otherwise. No in-depth profiles. There's coverage of events he participated that are passing mentions, but the coverage isn't about him. The entire Belsize Streatery section would be better in the Belsize Park article, if indeed it should be on Wikipedia at all. Can you post links here to the three best profiles of him? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:59, 4 July 2022 (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.