- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Theo Zographos
- Theo Zographos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:POLITICIAN; some minor local coverage but well short of WP:GNG. Frickeg ( talk) 14:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete no inherent notability of local councillors. Getting some coverage for some controversial statements doesn't cut it. LibStar ( talk) 15:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete There is more out there than in the article, including other controversies, and also reliable secondary source biographical material. There is material to support a more detailed article with appropriate references, but the subject still appears to be a local minor politician with no broader coverage, and does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Aoziwe ( talk) 14:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Local municipal councillors are not automatically presumed notable just for holding office — the depth of substance and sourceability has to show them to be significantly more notable than the norm before an article becomes appropriate. But neither the sourcing nor the substance are on the ball here — with just three sources of which one is a YouTube clip, and no substance that would make him anything more than a WP:BLP1E, this article is completely failing to do what it takes to get a municipal ward councillor in the door. Bearcat ( talk) 14:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Theo Zographos
- Theo Zographos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:POLITICIAN; some minor local coverage but well short of WP:GNG. Frickeg ( talk) 14:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete no inherent notability of local councillors. Getting some coverage for some controversial statements doesn't cut it. LibStar ( talk) 15:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete There is more out there than in the article, including other controversies, and also reliable secondary source biographical material. There is material to support a more detailed article with appropriate references, but the subject still appears to be a local minor politician with no broader coverage, and does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Aoziwe ( talk) 14:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Local municipal councillors are not automatically presumed notable just for holding office — the depth of substance and sourceability has to show them to be significantly more notable than the norm before an article becomes appropriate. But neither the sourcing nor the substance are on the ball here — with just three sources of which one is a YouTube clip, and no substance that would make him anything more than a WP:BLP1E, this article is completely failing to do what it takes to get a municipal ward councillor in the door. Bearcat ( talk) 14:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- 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.