Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire Wright (politician)

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. Sandstein 11:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Wright (politician)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Subject is an unelected political candidate. RaviC (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:BIO "Failure to meet [WP:POLITICIAN's] criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included ... A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable". As such, "Fails WP:POLITICIAN" is not on its own a particularly convincing argument for deletion. In this case the subject satisfies WP:BASIC and WP:GNG by virtue of the significant coverage in reliable sources cited in the article (especially the Telegraph, i and New Statesman pieces), which goes well beyond the routine local coverage that most parliamentary candidates can expect. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This rationale for GNG has been used in multiple AfDs without success - this is a routine campaign; please see the comments for e.g. by Bearcat and Bondegezou here. --RaviC (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vix only had an appearance on a hit TV show that failed to produce GNG coverage (the appearance, not the show). Claire was the subject of three news articles in national newspapers like New Statesman and The Telegraph that talked about her being a threat to the Tory monopoly on her constituency, which even outlived every human on the planet who was living at the time she ran. ミラ P 00:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to assess the sourcing of the Vix Lowthion article, but this article is about a different person with a different claim to notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is another unconvincing argument; in fact, the inapplicability of the sort of one-size-fits-all box-ticking solution you want to employ is precisely my point above. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arms & Hearts: There's a reason this exists, you know. Ask one of them there if they can email you a copy of that article. ミラ P 00:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 00:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. BIO1E does not apply because coverage has occurred from 2015 to 2019 for multiple runs. b uidhe 06:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:GNG - enough sources & references to satisfy the criteria. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither county councillors nor unelected candidates for higher office are presumed "inherently" notable on that basis in and of itself — and candidates are not automatically special just because they ran more than once, either. But the amount of coverage shown here is not enough to make her markedly more special than most other county councillors, or most other unelected candidates for office — every person who does either of those things can always show a small smattering of local coverage in those contexts, so if that small smattering were in and of itself enough to hand them a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, then every county councillor and every unelected candidate for higher office would always get that exemption, and NPOL itself would mean nothing anymore because nobody would ever actually have to pass it at all. For both county councillors and unelected candidates for higher office, the notability test is not merely the existence of the exact same local media coverage that every person in those roles can always show — people at those levels of political significance have to demonstrate a reason why they could credibly be deemed significantly more notable than the norm, which the sources here are not showing. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: What "small smattering of local coverage"? The keep votes are good at clarifying that Claire Wright is "significantly more notable than the norm": she was the subject of three news articles in national newspapers like New Statesman and The Telegraph that talked about her being a threat to the Tory monopoly on her constituency, which even outlived every human on the planet who was living at the time she ran. ミラ P 17:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being perceived during an election campaign as a "threat", but not actually coming through in the clutch as a winner in the end, is not in and of itself a thing that makes a candidate more special than other candidates. The bar for a claim like that is "accomplished something in her campaign that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance — something that made her so famous in and of itself that even if she never does another thing as long as she lives, people will still likely be looking for an article about her in 2029 specifically because of the thing she pulled off in her campaign, as e.g. Christine O'Donnell" — and not just "a national newspaper labelled her a threat but she lost in the end anyway". Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Yes not a "threat" as it is, but a "threat to the Tory monopoly on her constituency that outlives every human on the planet who was living at the time she ran" oughta be. I mean come on, the ERS wrote that the Tories have held her East Devon and its predecessors for 184 years - Jeanne Calment lived to the age of 122. In the meantime, I before'd the other four losing candidates and found no non-Devon coverage, which Claire Wright has unlike them. ミラ P 23:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to rephrase myself for clarity, then: everywhere I said "threat" in my previous comment, read that as merely an abbreviation for "threat to the Tory monopoly on her constituency that outlives every human on the planet who was living at the time she ran". Being labelled a contender to win an election, but then not actually winning it in the end, is simply not a notability claim that passes the ten year test for enduring significance: if the monopoly held once the ballots were actually counted, then having briefly seemed like she might have the potential to break it according to the speculation of media pundits does not make her special on anything like a permanent basis. The notability test for politicians is winning the election, not just running in it. Bearcat (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: WP:10YT is an essay, not a policy. While WP:BLP2E is also an essay and even makes it clear it's not a policy, it does apply existing policies like WP:BLP1E. Claire Wright ran for two elections, four years between, which is halfway across ten, so in any event there's no way in the world she fails WP:BLP1E. Therefore, the article should be kept. ミラ P 00:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I didn't say anything whatsoever about WP:BLP1E — but it's irrelevant anyway, because a person who runs for election ten times, and loses all ten times, is notable for zero things, not one or two or ten, because running for political office and losing is not a notability claim. Secondly, WP:ONLYESSAY clarifies the reasons why saying "that's only an essay" does not drop the mic or invalidate the essay: we have policies to tell us what to to and guidelines to tell us how to do it, so essays are every bit as authoritative and binding as policies. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I think you should refer to this:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if [i]t meets either [the GNG] or [an SNG]; and [i]t is not excluded under [WP:NOT]. Claire wright meets the GNG as shown by the arguments of @Buidhe and Lefcentreright:, and the closest WP:NOT thing is WP:NOTNEWS, but even that has been refuted in several AFDs that had sustained coverage for 30 days - Claire Wright had 4 years!

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage: Claire Wright is a Devon County Councillor who, while not notable just because, recieved SPC because national newspapers of prestige wrote articles about her being a threat to the you-know-what-so-I-won't-repeat-it. ミラ P 00:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need to familarize myself with nothing I am not already familiar with. GNG is not, and has never been, just "count up the footnotes and keep any topic that can pass two" — if that were how GNG worked, we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour who got into the media a few years ago for finding a pig in her yard. GNG also takes into account the context of what the person is getting covered for — coverage that exists in non-notable contexts, like being a candidate in an election that the person did not win, does not count as GNG-building coverage.

Campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election everywhere, so every candidate could always claim a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL if the existence of some campaign coverage was all they had to show, and NPOL would never actually apply to anybody anymore. So the inclusion bar for unsuccessful candidates is not "a handful of campaign coverage exists" — it is "the article demonstrates a reason why this person is markedly more notable than most other candidates", and "this person was labelled as a contender to win a seat she did not actually win in the end" is not evidence of that.

And similarly, local officeholders at the county level are also not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — again, the inclusion bar a county councillor has to clear is that the sourcing marks her out as markedly more notable than most other county councillors. Which, again, this article is not doing. Bearcat (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been explained to you several times over that the level of coverage concerning this person is significantly greater than the routine coverage most candidates receive. While it may be the case that "Campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election everywhere" (though you've provided no evidence for this assertion), it's demonstrably untrue that the level of coverage received by this candidate in these elections is received by every candidate in every election. You've repeatedly failed to address the article at stake on its own terms, and repeatedly insisted on a one-size-fits-all approach that plainly contradicts WP:BIO. Claiming that "coverage that exists in non-notable contexts ... does not count as GNG-building coverage" is not only without basis in any policy or guideline, it's also clearly begging the question – having assumed from start that this is a "non-notable context" (whatever that means), you've already ruled out the possibility of reaching any other conclusion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasons right above and both Buidhe and Lefcentreright. ミラ P 02:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The amount of coverage is not really any more than any county councilor/candidate for higher office would get. To show someone with this record is notable we need coverage at a level and with a depth more than we would normally expect for such a track recrds which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Yeah it is. Can you please read @Arms & Hearts: comment right above my keep vote? ミラ P 19:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not more coverage than we normally see. It also does not provide the depth of active searching and reporting we need to say it is truly indepdent of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Does being described by in depth articles of the Telegraph and New Statesman as a threat to 180 years of one-party rule in a constituency and predecessors count as more coverage than we normally see? Yes. It’s been explained many times here. ミラ P 19:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims of notability are sadly not reflected by the amount of coverage generated (three news articles in your words). Even Lord Buckethead received far more coverage than this during the election. --RaviC (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RaviC: But Missvain has more. ミラ P 02:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can appreciate the arguments for deletion, but at the last two elections she has had significant mention in the press as the most likely independent (excluding sitting MPs standing against their former parties) to win a seat in the House of Commons. It is also virtually unheard of in modern British politics for an Independent to finish second to a major party candidate in 3 consecutive elections. Indeed in 2019 the Sky election programme live covered the Devon East declaration because the result was notable and John Bercow and Dermot Murnaghan commented on her track record on the programme. Dunarc (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above comments suggest, no other independent candidate in recent times (bar Sylvia Hermon) has stood in three consecutive elections, nor come close to the amount of media coverage that she has had. PinkPanda272 (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I improved the article a bit more. She passes general notability guidelines. Here are reliable secondary sources that cover the subject in a significant way:

Missvain (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's all routine campaign coverage for an unsuccessful candidate. Even if WP:GNG applies, there's local consensus that losing candidates who don't receive coverage beyond the fact they're candidates are WP:NOT notable. I also think WP:BLP1E applies, even though she has run multiple times, as there's little to no coverage of her previous campaigns, and we can merge any relevant information to the results page. SportingFlyer T·C 02:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: WP:ROUTINE has already been shown not to apply to people, and Buidhe has already explained that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because she has run multiple times. ミラ P 02:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect on both counts. WP:ROUTINE applies not to people, but rather to the coverage that people receive, and all of her coverage is what you'd expect of a candidate. WP:BLP1E still applies because she's only notable for her 2019 run, as I have still to see an article on her 2015 and 2017 runs. As I've noted, we can include information on her on the elections page, and put up a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 02:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true that "all of her coverage is what you'd expect of a candidate" then you'll be able to show similar coverage to that enumerated above (16 pieces in reliable sources focusing primary or solely upon Wright's campaigns, five of which are in reputable national publications) for, let's say, Dan Wilson, Eleanor Rylance, Henry Gent and Peter Faithfull (the other failed candidates in East Devon in 2019). Of course, such coverage doesn't exist. I'm not sure why people keep making claims like these that are so easily disproved. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2020 (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.