Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Kaur Bhathal

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 delete. J04n(talk page) 13:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Kaur Bhathal[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unsuccessful candidate, and creation prior to an election is problematic as is suggests free advertising. Despite the long list of references, the subject is not notable for anything else, either. St Anselm (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook Delete per nomination. Timeshift (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. She is definitely not notable now per longstanding consensus, however; she is a candidate who could very plausibly win and this should be kept somewhere closeby for instant recreation in the extent that she does. My main concern with deleting as opposed to userfying is that she is never known by this name - every source I have ever read calls her "Alex Bhathal" - and I don't want it to get forgotten in the 50-50 scenario that she does win. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I agree with The Drover's Wife, it's actually pretty good content, and Bhathal is likely to win the seat, but just not appropriate in mainspace at this time. Is it just me or is there a kind of grassroots editing push from Greens staffers and supporters at this election? It's very subtle, and almost always related to Bhathal and Batman, but it's not against any rules or even overtly promotional. --Canley (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy under the name "Alex Bhathal" per The Drover's Wife. Frickeg (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frickeg: thanks, I have no problem with the title being changed to Alex Bhathal. I'm very new to this sort of article as most of the other pages I created were scientists who usually prefer their formal name - and she uses her full name on the ballot paper. CanleyJust to clarify, I don't have any affiliation to the Greens or other party and wasn't asked by anyone else to make it. I just live in Batman and (naively) thought I'd try my hand at creating a page when I was googling Alex Bhathal and thought it would be helpful to have all the information on one page for someone who keeps popping up in the news. Same goes for my start at a page for Liberty Sanger - in both cases I thought I was helping the wikipedia effort by creating new pages, especially for women who I know are under-represented! (And I regret my stuff ups in both cases - I will stick to less controversial topics from now on!!) (and apologies if I shouldn't be posting this here - feel free to delete)Vsolomon (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're fine (and completely encouraged to create articles, especially in underrepresented areas!) - Wikipedia just has notability guidelines that guide who does and does not warrant articles, and unfortunately someone who is solely known for a political candidate and somebody who (while clearly professionally important) is mainly publicly known as the wife of a Senator are not likely to meet that bar. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vsolomon: Thanks for your work and your enthusiasm. I realise it is disappointing when your work gets nominated for deletion. It has happened to me several times before. I especially agree on the importance of creating article for unrepresented notable women. I would urge you to take a look at WikiProject Women in Red which tries to increase the amount of biographies on notable women and has a list of articles to be created which you could get involved with. AusLondonder (talk) 06:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement and also pointing me in the direction of some other acceptably notable women where I can hone my skills.Vsolomon (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Per the others ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am slightly perplexed by the multiple comments (@Canley:, @Ukexpat:, @The Drover's Wife: favouring userfying. WP:POLOUTCOMES states these sort of articles "Are not moved to user space for fear of establishing a precedent that any premature article about an as-yet-unelected candidate for office can be kept in draftspace pending election returns, effectively making draftspace a repository for campaign brochures" AusLondonder (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable point. I personally have no problem if it's moved to Alex Bhathal and then deleted because the deletion notifications will take care of the issue and preserve the content so it can be undeleted if she wins the second someone goes to create an article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure we had an AUSPOL consensus years ago (2010 maybe?) to "incubate" doubtful current election candidates. The userfied version would, of course, be deleted should she lose. I note that WP:POLOUTCOMES refers to "losing" candidates, and people are suggesting userfication based on her current candidature, not her past ones. Frickeg (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As not notable and not meeting WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if she wins the seat. As noted, WP:POLOUTCOMES already explicitly precludes allowing unelected candidates to hold onto draft articles in userspace or draftspace pending the election results, precisely because we have to keep those namespaces from becoming overrun with campaign brochures for unelected candidates — so as always, it's worth remembering that if she wins the seat, she will then have cleared WP:NPOL #1 and any administrator will then be happy to restore the deleted article for updating. Until that happens, however, it's a clearcut case of WP:TOOSOON — and no, the fact that the election campaign is currently under way does not grant the candidates a temporary exemption from having to meet the same standards as they would at any other time. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until she wins an election she will be unnotable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Don't move articles at AfD – please keep this in mind in future. Jenks24 (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an essay, and one not relevant here because of the considerable probability it will need to get recreated. ("Better to let the AfD play out before moving; if the article is deleted, there was no point in moving in the first place; if it's kept, it can be moved then, there is no deadline and a Wikipedian's work is never done!") No one is advocating that it be kept if she loses (so it can't just be a move discussion at the end of this AfD), but basically everyone is in agreement that it needs to be recreated at the right title if she wins and people need to find the damn thing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:AFDEQ states "there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress". In my view any discouragement of moving does not relate to a trivial change like this. AusLondonder (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing solidly convincing for any applicable notability, quite detailed and sourced but still nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing that makes me believe the subject is notable. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:16, 12 June 2016 (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.