Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Benn (3rd nomination)

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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Benn

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

Attention on Ms Benn's comes in two ways: she's a local councillor and a failed Parliamentary candidate. This fails WP:NPOL. However, she has also attracted some attention as Tony Benn's granddaughter, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. If we exclude routine election coverage and mentions in articles about her family, there's very little left that's actually about her. The main thing left is this spat with Andrew Fisher, that is better covered on his page. This article was up for AfD twice before, with a "keep" decision in 2009 and "no consensus" decision in 2010. Expectations of notability have tightened since then, so I think it's worth re-considering this article. I would also note that there's been not much more recently on Ms Benn: no evidence of lasting significance. Bondegezou (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep No you can't prod this article and as this is its third trip to AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Emily Benn WP:Articles for deletion/Emily Benn (2nd nomination) as you don't seem to have linked them above) then you need to show a better case than IDONTLIKEIT for why things have changed. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I broke the template and can't work out how to fix it, thus the link to prior AfDs is not showing above. If anyone can fix, please help -- thanks! The AfDs are first and second. I think the reasons I have given are clear enough to support a normal discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Andy Dingley has now fixed this -- thanks. Back to the actual discussion... Bondegezou (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that for a normal politician, she would not normally meet the politics-specific inclusion criteria. However, she is not a normal politician, as part of one of the UKs most notable political families. With being part of this comes reliable sources that satisfy WP:GNG; it is my view that the GNG must take precedence over WP:NPOL. The core principle of GNG is: if there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. These sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], all from major UK news outlets clearly show her notability as required by the GNG.
The issue raised on inherent notability is not an issue here. From the specific WP:ITSA: Inherent notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it exists, even if zero independent reliable sources have ever taken notice of the subject. As shown above, sources do exists so we can't claim that the article fails WP:ITSA as verifiable evidence has shown to the contrary. The high quality sources exist, and so does the notability. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Coverage that comes as part of standing for an election, which seems to me to be the latter three of the articles you give, should not count towards WP:GNG. That's the point of WP:NPOL/WP:POLOUTCOMES, I suggest: we can cover candidates on the relevant election or constituency articles. (It's kind of a variation of WP:1E.) Otherwise all sorts of unsuccessful candidates would get in on GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think WP:POLOUTCOMES last point is very pertinant to the issue here. It is saying that local officials who received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role may be notable. The articles above are not the normal, routine coverage that a candidate for parliament gets - your average candidate does not get a full BBC News, or Independant article covering their candidateship - this is coverage at a national level that is far above what is expected. This counts to notability. Further, a normal candidate does not get a whole Times article covering a day in their life. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 16:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - If someone had a Times obituary, I'd say they were definitely notable. Everyone who gets a Times obituary should have a Wikipedia article. But the "a day in the life" series in the Sunday Times that covered this person is a cutesy, human interest thing. Not everyone covered should have a Wikipedia article. I wouldn't put too much weight on it. The coverage of her candidacy could be better covered in a broader article, as per WP:POLOUTCOMES third bullet point. A sentence or two about her in a broader article (something like "Emily Benn was the fifth generation from her family to stand for Parliament and would have been the youngest MP ever had she been successful") seems more appropriate to me than a whole article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think cutesy, human interest still illustrates that she is significant. There would be no reason to write a day in the life about a non-notable/significant person. She has been the subject of many independant major UK news articles. That shows notability. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 10:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seven years later, she has since been elected to office. Whether or not you disagree with the decisions made in the '09 and'10 discussions, she has since been elected as a local councilor. In this position, she was a major local political figure who received significant press coverage, allowing her to fulfill the notability standard as seen in WP:POLITICIAN. SOXROX (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Forgive me, but WP:POLITICIAN says being a local councillor is insufficient. She clearly fails those criteria: she has to get in on WP:N as far as I can see. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From WP:POLITICIAN criteria, Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are notable, where a politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. The sources TheMagikCow provided, in addition to [5] to me constitute independent in-depth coverage in multiple news feature articles by journalists. Particularly, as per WP:POLOUTCOMES guidelines, all sources provided here are from national publications. Ralbegen (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2017 (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.