Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niki Ashton (second 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 of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niki Ashton

Closer's notes
The debate reached no consensus because there was not sufficient support for any single option.

About a third favoured deletion.
About half favoured keeping the article.
About a quarter favoured merging the article.

Thus there is a consensus not to delete the article (although the majority was divided between keeping and merging the content).

Delete NN, doesn't meet WP:BIO, consensus has generally been that former candidate, if otherwise not noteable, do not get pages. pm_shef 05:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page was nominated for deletion once before, and survived. CJCurrie 05:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election as per other defeated candidates. Luigizanasi 06:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An NDP candidates in the 2006 Canadian federal election candidate. For great justice. 08:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A candidate for mainstream party in national election is a marginal case, that can go either way. But, given there was not a delete in the first AFD, we should stick with that. With a million articles in Wikipedia, one AFD for each is sufficient. --Rob 10:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per For Great Justice. OoskMR 11:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ought to have been deleted the first time. Even less reason now to keep it. Skeezix1000 11:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with other defeated candidates. The article was kept last time due to no conensus based on being a candidate for national office. Well, she lost. Thatcher131 11:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The previous AfD was closed as a no consensus not keep forever. AfD in the past has shown that candidates cross the threshold to notability when they win the elction they're campaigning for. Merely being nominated isn't enough because plenty of people are nominated for these things all the time in Canada and the US and luckily we don't have entries for all of those people. To state that one AfD of no consensus should be sufficient to shield any article from ever being deleted is disingenuous. RasputinAXP c 11:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, losers of an election are usually not notable and she is not notable enough for other reasons to be an exception. -- Kjkolb 12:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable, and of considerable historical interest, for defeating three-term incumbent MP Bev Desjarlais in her own party's nomination election, a rare occurance, after which Desjarlais ran in the general election as an independent (and placed far below Ashton). Samaritan 15:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BIO turns on "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature" and "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage." Ashton is not the former, and as to the latter, she has all of 168 total G-hits. "Significant press coverage" that isn't. (Quite aside from that the Churchill riding defines, in non-territorial Canada, the back end of nowhere.) RGTraynor 16:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ A fairness argument can be made while the election is going on, but once it's over, unless the person is otherwise notable, I see no reason to have a bunch of entries for candidates who ran once and lost. Fan1967 20:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Please do not keep. Commons has 308 seats. US House has 435. Conservatives, Liberals, NDPs, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens and independents add up to a lot of losing candidates. A huge number lost the only election of their lives, and will go back to obscurity. Unless an individual has other notability, or made the campaign notable in some way, they should not have permanent articles. Fan1967 01:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO -- Ned Scott 20:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Fishhead64 21:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a notable Northern Manitoban, not many of them, fewer people up there, so it's no surprise that she doesn't have many web hits, though the page does need to work. The Ashtons are a political family here in Manitoba, it might be better to make 1 page for both of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.179.252.24 (talk • contribs) .
Keep or Merge to NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. The above anon is correct in saying that the Ashton family is highly influential in northern Manitoba. Also, someone above mentioned her unseating a three-term incumbent, which makes her notable in the history of Canadian politics; nomination unseatings are very rare in Canada. Also, on the Google search method - a poor choice indeed for a region where, despite high computer ownership in Canada, less than half of the population owns or has access to a computer. —Cuivi é nen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 22:12 (UTC)

Comment. Google hits =/ page views; we're not measuring how popular Ms. Ashton is (I rather think the electoral results did that for us). They measure how notable she is. What you and several other noms are doing is arguing why she should be notable, and your arguments are defensible, but the purpose of AfD isn't as an advocacy group. Demonstrably, Ms. Ashton was a mere drop in the outside world, and barring greater success in politics, she just hasn't demonstrated that the world's particularly noticed her. RGTraynor 14:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rob. Ground Zero | t 23:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it still doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. I'm sorry, but what is wrong with you people. Just because someone doesn't have their very own Wikipedia article doesn't make them not important. This article gives nothing to the world. -- Ned Scott 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ashton was the only person to defeat any Canadian Member of Parliament running for reelection for their own party's nomination in the 2006 election. Political historians will value a quick biography of the victorious candidate who did so, even though she came second in the general election (to a well-known actor who seized on this split running for another party). Samaritan 00:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I realize that not everybody agrees on the notability of unelected political candidates, the precedent has already been set that federal candidates are entitled at least to inclusion in a merged list. I'm inclined to agree with Samaritan that l'affaire Desjarlais is, in and of itself, a sufficient criterion of notability, but per established practice, as a candidate in a federal election she's unequivocally entitled to at least a subsection in a merged candidates list. Either keep or merge into NDP candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election; precedent already excludes outright deletion as an option. Bearcat 00:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on merits of notability as a federal NDP candidate, as well as nothing having changed since previous AfD. MCB 05:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was a huge change since the last AfD. The election happened. She lost. Fan1967 13:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was part of a nomination race and election campaign that garnered a lot of media attention. She's also pretty youung and could make future runs for office. It does need some heavy editing though. --NDP Johnny 07:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I would have no doubts about voting delete were it not for the same sex marriage issue defeat of Bev Desjarlais for the nomination, which was extensively covered by the national media, and a notable (but transient) current event. Pete.Hurd 19:07, 16 April 2006 (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.