Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody Dunn (2nd 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 merge to Hartlepool by-election, 2004. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Dunn

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

Non-notable unsuccessful British politician; fails WP:BIO. She has never held elected office, and is unlikely to in the near future. A search for sources fails to find significant coverage in reliable sources; the only sources I could find are either non-independent (from her own party website) or trivial. Robofish (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Her fifteen minutes have passed. Wereon (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. The presence of multiple, in-depth reliable sources have confirmed that she is notable. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the second sentence of the paragraph you linked to. Wereon (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence says, "However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E)." This is not the case here. Jody Dunn received coverage in 2002, 2004, and 2005. This is not a sudden burst of coverage that WP:NOTNEWS would apply to. Cunard (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a thorough look at what you've just linked to. All the stories seem to relate solely to either the 2004 by-election, or the 2005 general election. The only story I can find about a Jody Dunn from 2002 is that she teaches French and Spanish to children. Sounds very much like a sudden burst of coverage to me. Wereon (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only two sources are needed to satisfy WP:BIO. The fact that she has had coverage in 2002, as well as some sources in 2004 and 2005, means that she is notable. There are more than five sources about her. Since the sources are spread out over three years, this is not a "burst of coverage". The burst of coverage that WP:NOTNEWS refers to is when a lurid news event happens, the media covers it for a day or two, and then the media gets bored and the event is no longer the subject of substantial coverage. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a direct link to the story from 2002. The stories from 2004 and 2005 effectively refer to the same story rehashed, viz. Dunn's standing in the election in Hartlepool. Your rewrite may be sourced, but it goes no way towards proving her notability. Wereon (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link from 2002 is under a pay wall. Cunard (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth do you know what it says then? It could just be of routine record, or the parsing software might have burped and assigned it to the wrong year (as seems to have happened with Google's "2008" and "2009" stories, linked to from above). There's no way you can quote that as evidence with a straight face. Wereon (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article may or may not qualify as in-depth coverage; however, I am certain that it was written in 2002. Instead of discussing the notability of Jody Dunn, could you comment on the merge I have just done? Cunard (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Arnold Berg? Wereon (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although Jody Dunn may fail WP:POLITICIAN, she passes WP:BIO. See this article, this article and this article from The Guardian. These articles provide significant biographical information about Dunn. I also found this article from The Independent which talked about her being 35-years-old (in 2004), half-Finnish, and a former disc jockey. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are all from perfectly reliable sources, but they're all tied to her being a candidate. This would seem to me to indicate that her notability is fairly clearly tied to the Hartlepool by-election, so perhaps she should be discussed in that article and this could be merged in there? We do generally take this approach for people whose public fame is limited to a single event. Shimgray | talk | 23:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jody Dunn is notable for one single event. She is notable for two. She ran in 2004 and 2005. Cunard (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage, though, is all from the by-election - that was a major news story, what with the Mandelson angle as well as the attention usually lavished on by-elections with a decent chance of an upset. There's little to no specific coverage of her as a candidate in the 2005 election, barring the routine directory-type entries, because that was substantially more prosaic and less significant. Shimgray | talk | 23:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, she has received some coverage about it. Which policy or guideline justifies the deletion of an article when it passes the notability guidelines? WP:BLP1E certainly does not apply. Cunard (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good example of a routine record; it's a passing reference that she contested the election - and, I note, it's a passing reference within the context of the Hartlepool constituency, rather than discussing her in her own right. I really do think merging to the by-election, where she became briefly nationally significant, is all that's needed, and it would be if anything more useful to our readers. Shimgray | talk | 23:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that a merge is the best option, then feel free to do one. I don't see how Jody Dunn and her biographical details can fit into another article. My only worry is that valuable content will be lost from Wikipedia for no valid reason. Cunard (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Precedent on unsuccessful by-election candidates is they don't meet the threshold for that even if they do get a few stories on them for the one event. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failing WP:POLITICIAN doesn't preclude a person from passing WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: WP:POLITICIAN states that

“

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 of the article."

”

This proves that this article should be kept because Jody Dunn has received enough coverage to pass WP:N. Cunard (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A former unsuccessful candidate who appears to be no longer politically active. Any relevant material from the campaigns can be put in the articles on the election in that seat. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What policy or guideline dictates that an unsuccessful candidate's article should be deleted, even though she passes WP:BIO. WP:POLITICIAN allows this article to exist since there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."
If you believe that a merge is the best option, then feel free to do one. I don't see how Jody Dunn and her biographical details can fit into another article. My only worry is that valuable content will be lost from Wikipedia for no valid reason. Cunard (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have rewritten and sourced this article. The WP:BLP violations that were in the article no longer exist. There is no reason for this article to be deleted because it is now sourced. WP:BIO is fully met by the coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – She's notable for one event only (the 2004 by-election); being one of thousands of unsuccessful candidates in the 2005 general election does not establish a second round of notability such that she could survive the WP:BLP1E test. — Lincolnite (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply because it applies to people who keep a low-profile. Politicians, who are running for office, automatically give up their anonymity when they run for office. Cunard (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since a merge was suggested by Shimgray and Timrollpickering, I have done one. Please take a look at Hartlepool by-election, 2004. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tad unsubtle. I suggest that you delete everything apart from the paragraph beginning "During every night of her campaign". Her biographical details etc. would only fit in if she warranted a page of her own. Wereon (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She does warrant page of her own because she has been covered by multiple reliable sources. However, the consensus here seems to deny her an article simply because she has lost the election. If you believe that I merged too much into the article, feel free to the remove the content. I won't because I can't bear deleting content that I spent precious time sourcing and expanding. Cunard (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ONEEVENT. Ironholds (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Merge and redirect Ironholds (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the content to Hartlepool by-election, 2004 per the suggestions of Shimgray and Timrollpickering. Are you against this merge? Cunard (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, sorry, didn't see it; !vote amended. Ironholds (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect relevent content to Hartlepool by-election, 2004.Singingdaisies (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2009 (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.