Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Shenton

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dhartung (talk | contribs) at 22:34, 23 May 2008 (→Elizabeth Shenton: d). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Elizabeth Shenton

Elizabeth Shenton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete per ample precedent that being an unsuccessful candidate in a British parliamentary election does not confer notability. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Query: The relevant notability policy states that "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are considered notable. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." As the candidate for the third party in one of the most significant by-elections in a generation, surely she has received significant coverage? A quick search on Lexis Nexis shows up 64 articles in the last month, including national newspapers; Some of these will be mere mentions in passing but others I have seen are definitely not. I agree with you that simply being a candidate in a by-election does not confer notability but there is a serious argument to be made that she has garnered significant coverage. My query is: could you reframe your objection in terms of how this fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN? TreveXtalk 18:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 10:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: I am surprised that parliamentary candidates are eligible for articles in the first place solely on the basis of their candidacy - we risk being deluged with all sorts of non-notable guff if this is the case. --Smerus (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If we keep this, we will have to undelete loads of other non-notable articles...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 11:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is being discussed right now in [1] Iain Dale's Diary, where a number of bloggers are saying that Tim Roll Pickering who initiated this AFD is a Tory activist - does this matter? I would have thought that the day after an election, for a political opponent to suddenly want to AFD a rival's entry seems not to follow general Wikipedia guidelines on conduct, am I right? Smorgasm (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're wrong. This article should never have been created, as the person sole claim to any notability was being a candiadate (and councillor). I was going to nominate the losing candidates once the by-election was over anyway. Mike Natrass is an MEP, Tamsin Dunwoody is a former AM and Timpson is now an MP, Shenton is only a councillor, which carries no notability. That Iain Dale is discussing it is neither here nor there, there are clear policies on this WP:BIO and WP:N being the most important. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But Tim is a conservative party member and activist and his intention is clearly political, which Iain Dale applauds - surely this is against WP:CONFLICT? 81.149.153.146 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI applies to the creation of articles, not the AfD process. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Say what?? Since when? I quote directly from the WP:COI page...

"How to avoid COI edits Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:

Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with"

Tim is a leading Tory activist working for Conservative Central Office and in concert with leading Tory blogger and publicist Iain Dale. You can't get much more blatantly competitive than that. 81.149.153.146 (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain: This is an historic bye-election. This article will be a subject of acdamic interrest for many decades. It would be an irresponsible act to delete this entry. To delete it would an Orwellian act of the use of the 'Memory Hole". If this is deleted then a good quarter of the articles on wikipedia should go either on the basis of inaccuracy, irrelevance or bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.142.228 (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain: Disagree with Darren entirely. It is perfectly reasonable to create an entry for a candidate in an upcoming parliamentary election/by-election, particularly where the candidate is a member of a mainstream party and therefore has at least some prospect, however small, of being elected. Had she been successful in winning the seat, then the notability criteria would have been satisfied. There is clearly a conduct issue here in the manner in which this was AfD'd. Not only is their a clear bias in Tim Roll-Pickering's actions, but the fact that it is being discussed on a prominent political blog within a few hours of being AfD'd suggests that at least part of the intent here may have to set up an opportunity for a bit of cheap gloating. By all means review the article in a month or so to see if there's sufficient interest to warrant its retention, but it be retained until it becomes clear whether there may be anything like the interest that the previous comment suggests —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unity2705 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unity2705 (talk • contribs) [reply]
It looks like the Iain Dale entry has brought along some SPAs. Darrenhusted (talk)
  • Delete per nom, consistent with other AfDs on councillors and by-election candidates. Oh, not that Tim's affiliations matter here, but he has been entirely consistent with this issue of notability and has nominated failed candidates councillors of all parties. Martín (saying/doing) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this shouldn't be deleted, especially on political grounds (and I say this as a non-Lib Dem). There is still demand for this information - I am an example of someone who has just searched the page to see more about her (and I did the same for some of the other candidates). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.198 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As several people, including a number of random IPs are questioning my motivation for nominating the article I'd like to set a few matters straight:
    • 1). There is indeed ample precedent in past AFDs that being or having been an unsuccessful parliamentary candidate in the Westminster system does not make someone inherently notable. And by-elections have been found to be no different. Ditto local councillors. Hence the nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#People where it says:
      • Candidates for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Bance (second nomination). However, such candidates are permitted inclusion in a merged list of candidate biographies, such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. (Note, however, that some dissent may be expressed if the election campaign in question is currently underway — however, dissent has also been engineered on occasion by the candidate's own campaign office, so monitor this for potential sockpuppetry.) Also, review the whole article before nominating it for deletion, as the person may be legitimately notable for other reasons, such as having previously held another elective office. The fact that the incumbent has an article is not, in and of itself, a valid reason to keep articles on electoral opponents who have not already achieved notability — Wikipedia is not a campaign tool.
    • 2). As others have pointed out, the other candidates in the by-election who have articles include the new MP, a former Welsh Assembly Member, an MEP and the current Miss Great Britain. With the possible exception of the last (as I haven't much experience of AFDs on beauty contest winners) there is ample precedent that holding any of those positions confers notability. Hence not nominating any of them for deletion.
    • 3). I have in the past nominated articles on ex candidates and councillors from both main parties as well as the Liberal Democrats and other small parties, all on the same consistent principle that they do not meet the threshold for notability.
    • 4). Wikipedia articles by definition tend to attract editors who have interest in or vague connections to the subject matter. However anyone routinely just making AFD nominations with an axe to grind would rapidly be noticed and the discussions speedily closed. Regular editors from all parties often comment on these AFDs and frequently they do come to the same conclusions - in this area that both being/having been a candidate and being/having been a local councillor does not meet the notability threshold.
    • 5). Even before polling day another user added a template to the article querying notability.
    • 6). Accusations of bias often come (although not exclusively) from people who are not regular editors of Wikipedia and who lack familiarity with the AFD debates.
    • 7). I refute the accusation that I work for Conservative Central Office (I have never done so) or that I am in concert with Iain Dale. (I won't bother disputing the outdated "Tory" tag from someone who may well be a "Whig".) I have no idea how Iain discovered this but if this were a deliberate set-up then surely I would have covered my tracks?
    • 8). All of this should be irrelevant to the discussion at hand which is whether or not Elizabteh Shenton meets the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia.
  • Timrollpickering (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have just added two citations to extremely reliable sources - the BBC and the Guardian. These are for separate incidents - the by-election and her union role in the Natwest takeover. Since she is, in addition, a local politician and general activist, I expect that we will be seeing more of her. There is no merit in this nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even whilst she was a candidate, I think notability was pretty borderline; now the only assertion of notability is that she is a serving councillor. Insufficient. DWaterson (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability does not expire; it accumulates. Every time this person gets into the national news, as has happened repeatedly, she becomes increasingly worthy of note. We are not voting for office here; we are recording history. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This individual does not hold a notable office, and being an unsuccessful candidate in a high profile campaign does not give her notability. Mas 18 dl (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find the arguments put forward by Trevex and Colonel Warden above convince me more than those opposed. She has been on TV a great deal now in the UK and is pretty well known. Smorgasm (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A candidate from the third party comes third in a by-election; that's pretty "dog bites man" stuff. I'm fairly sure that history will note the 2008 Crewe and Nantwich by-election for its 17.6% swing from Labour to Conservative. It was wrong to create the page for Shenton in the first place, and it's certainly wrong to keep it now. — Wereon (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sure it's borderline but I expect we'll be seeing more of her fairly soon. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elizabeth_Shenton&oldid=214517881"