Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Downer

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. This discussion has received quite ample input, but there is no consensus for a particular outcome here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Downer

[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:GNG; WP:NPOL never elected to office. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed notablity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics/Archive 10#Georgina Downer notable Newystats (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Devonian Wombat or Merge to Downer family. Enough notability for at least a mention on the Downer family page, should not be deleted as there are alternatives. Deus et lex (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. WP:GNG is the only valid justification, although her political candidature contributes to the profile. There look to be about a dozen Wikipedia pages that would link to this page if it is kept. The article needs work, but there's a limit to how much people will do while it has AFD hanging over it. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates for political office do not get articles just for being candidates per se — and no, the fact that a handful of campaign coverage exists doesn't automatically hand candidates a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL either, because every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage. Rather, to make a non-winning candidate notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, she needs to pass one or both of two other tests: either (a) she has a strong claim to preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, or (b) she can show credible evidence that her candidacy should be deemed a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies. But this does nothing to demonstrate that she would pass the second test, and just chairing a university institute isn't an automatic free pass over the first test in the absence of properly sourced evidence that she would pass WP:ACADEMIC — so no, nothing here is enough. No prejudice against recreation of a redirect to the family list, but she's already named in it and there's nothing stated here that needs to be added there, so there's not much merging necessary. Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while ordinarily a regular political candidate would not be notable, her involvement in the Sports rorts affair (2020) means that she satisfied WP:BLP1E. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Being notable for one event under WP:BLP1E tends to argue for not having an individual article on the person. Boneymau (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, she received coverage for being a political candidate and for the sports rorts affair, meaning she received coverage for two events. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Scott Davis and the Devonian Wombat. Furius (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There's not much here that couldn't be covered by a couple sentences under Alexander Downer#Personal life and a couple sentences at Sports rorts affair (2020). (Frankly I'm not sure the justification is there for a separate Downer family article). I think there's a question as to whether some of the coverage is actually about Downer per se, as opposed to the elections in which she stood. By-elections can attract significant coverage of the candidates, but that's not necessarily indicative of the candidates' notability. I don't think any one of her career, her candidacies, or her involvement in the scandal are enough to meet GNG in their own right, and I'm inclined to say that summed together they still don't at this stage. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ms Downer has attracted sufficient coverage over the years as a result of her political career and other activities Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Bearcat CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:NOTINHERITED. WWGB (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extensive, multiyear, in-depth coverage from all of Australia's major news sources. Easily passes the GNG. --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2021 (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.