Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deidre Willmott

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. (edit conflict) Going by vote count, this AFD doesn't have a consensus. However, I am tempted to lean delete per the strong rationales of the delete !voters. However, there is too much bad drama surrounding the nominator to close this as delete. Any delete close would immediately end up at WP:DRV. So I am closing as no consensus with no prejudice to renomination. v/r - T P 16:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deidre Willmott[edit]

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

Her only notable involvement in politics was as a student, she withdrew candidacy before being "in" politics; she was working as a lawyer for politicians (as a public servant); she was the "initial" CHOGM director (evidently moved on); and is just a "group manager" at FMG, and not directorship. Twigfan (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still have an issue with the deletion of the { { notability } } tag that was here previously, and had been, since October 2011. I'd say the enlisted search query just shows that she has been enlisted in 52 articles, of which some are her writings in law journals, others are her having a tilt at an election (which based on the article she withdrew), the point about her in student politics is totally non-notable, and the others about her shift to FMG. So based on WP:N, I'd say she has coverage by reliable sources - but this is not "significant" coverage. She is mentioned in trivial, but not as the main topic of the source material. Also, a lot of the non-law sources are not independent of the subject (her). Also, "significant coverage" requires reliable sources to write a whole article, not just half a paragraph or definition.

Delete: I'm going to introduce the { { prod } } tag and we can move this into a deletion discussion. Twigfan (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The points I raised, on the tag, I'll restate so you can comment on here:

* Her only notable involvement in politics was as a student, she withdrew candidacy before being "in" politics: So the point about student politics is totally irrelevant to determine notability. As "in politics" - she withdrew candidacy. She was never really a pollie. To be notable as a politician, you need to be an elected official. Not only didn't she "win" the election - she didn't even run in the election, as she "withdrew".

* She was working as a lawyer for politicians (as a public servant): My point is, public servants, for example, accountants/lawyers/engineers/even admin people working for the government, don't expect to be in the "public light". They are behind the scenes.

* She was the "initial" CHOGM director (evidently moved on): My point is that, though CHOGM is a public event, she was only there "initially". How long was this "initial" period? What did she do there? What was she notable for there?

* She is just a "group manager" at FMG, and not directorship: My point is, a manager at Disney Manufacturing, for example, might be a mom or dad. That might be the same for somebody at BORAL. They don't intend to be in the "public eye". She's a group manager, not the "Director of Communications" at FMG, for example.— Preceding unsigned comment added by twigfan (talk • contribs)

Delete – This subject doesn't pass WP:BASIC requirements of substantial coverage. She comes closest under WP:POLITICIAN, but that coverage doesn't approach even substantial local coverage standards. I think WP:BLP1E speaks to her best claim of notability. The rest doesn't amount to notable activity, and while it might fit in an otherwise notable BLP, a well-documented education and career alone don't pass the test. JFHJr (㊟) 04:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article and the behaviour around it suggests a WP:SPA is trying to remove an article related to FMG - and I fail to see adequate reasoning behind above arguments regarding notability - the local context is clear (although not to the delete arguments - but that is another story) - and really the various other methods of trying to remove the article suggest ulterior motives - also I do not endorse this Afd or the arguments being used - specially refactoring a comment I made elsewhere is simply not adequate, I have removed it and do not endorse the 'lifting of editors comments from one talk page to an afd page without the slightest consultation. Satu Suro 05:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* I just tend to think that your arguments for keep surround myself, rather than the article itself. Don't you think this could be construed as argumentum ad hominem, as trying to remove an article, suggests ulterior motives, do not endorse... refactoring a comment I made elsewhere, do not endorse the lifting of editors comments from one talk page to an afd page without the slightest consultation - these are totally unrelated to establishing notability? I think the onus is on the creator of the article to establish it; not the onus of people who think it is non-notable to delete it. You do suggest "the local context is clear" - but what context? what is clear? Twigfan (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable person, involved in some of the biggest events in Australia over revent years CHOGM 2011, MRRT and WA State politics, all sourced[1] her involvement was notable to reported on the East coast of Australia something thats very unusual. Gnan garra 08:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Yeah, she was a Director at CHOGM (but who knows how long, she was only the "initial" one), interesting regarding the Minerals Tax didn't know that (but that isn't even mentioned in her article), as for WA state politics (she failed to get elected, she's a political wannabe). I'd agree with WP:BLP1E, as her best claim to notability as User:JFHJr suggested. As suggested, Wikipedia:LOTSOFSOURCES doesn't mean notability. Also as suggested, her best claim to fame is WP:POLITICIAN, but to be one, you need not only be in the race to be elected, but also actually elected. She didn't even go to the elections, dropping out before hand! Twigfan (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to pass WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Hmm, I agree there are reliable sources independent of her that cover her, but it seems like Wikipedia:LOTSOFSOURCES. Also, the articles are not about her - she seems just mentioned in trivial? What's she done to warrant her fame? Twigfan (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to pass WP:GNG. --Design (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Gnan garra 08:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She passes GNG, but I don't see much of an assertion of notability. The lead: She's "... a business manager and former public servant." There are probably millions of such people in the world. Why's she especially notable?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like an easy one to me - pretty non-notable career; nothing which comes close on WP:POLITICIAN or any senior role in a firm that satisfies WP:CORP. Can't quite understand the "Keep" rationale myself. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notwithstanding that the nominator is now indef-blocked for playing games (I concur with block BTW), and that there may be ulterior motives for the nomination, I can't really see the case to keep. Moondyne (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm undecided on the notability of the person but, to me, the nomination seems to have been made in bad faith, especially in light of the block of the nominator. Wouldn't that make it a Wikipedia:SK? I know its a bit of a hassle but any of the people voting for delete could start a new AFD without the stigma of a bad faith nomination attached to it, as it is now. Calistemon (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, has been in various public roles which have attracted significant local attention. Orderinchaos 14:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another one of those "enough brushes with notability adds up to notability" type articles. Miracle Pen (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N requires reliable sources (check) independent of the subject (check) that deal with the subject directly in detail (check). She seems to be a notable person in the Western Australian Industrial Sector. While that may not be too interesting to most people, interest to any one specific person is not what makes notability. A search of the Google News Archive reveals several articles that focus on her career movements and actions. ManicSpider (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability requres doing something notable, and any number of less than notable things added up together amounts to less than notable. I completely deny MiraclePen's proposition to the contrary: a mediocre record as any number of things remains a mediocre record. When I see a bio with minor claims in disparate fields, I look very very carefully. Student politicians have never been considered notable here unless at a national level, Deciding nnot to run for office isn't notable. Her government jobs would be notable if at a national level, but they were at a state level. "Group manager" is a vague title--being CEO of the company would be notable, but that's much less than that. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you are affirming rather than denying my point. When I said "enough brushes with notability adds up to notability", I was speculating on what the article's author was – and possibly the Keeps are – thinking, not trying to justify it. Miracle Pen (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting(CHOGM) is an international event involving the governments of some 50 odd countries its a bit more than a national level. All the other things while small arent related but she notable enough to be covered in each which makes her article the perfect daughter article. Gnan garra 10:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for closing admin - suggest no consensus specially as the nominator tried 3 times to eliminate the article as a new user without proper process - suggesting either a strong link to either Willmott or FMG - no other reason is particularly obvious from that particular user's edit history apart from being blocked and trying very hard to appear like a schoolgirl - which the editor is highly unlikely to be in view of the edit history and style of editing.
Why the Afd was not shut down after the editor was shown to be at error and under suspicion is a bit odd.
Willmott was a candidate for political office - and was one of two ex-UWA Guild presidents to try for nominations close in time - neither achieved an entry - despite having been through the usual apprenticeship for potential politicians of being associated with the UWA Guild (a look at the list of Presidents and it is not an accident you might see an ex prime minister and other ex ministers on the list) and/or the CCIWA - the fact that the system failed them is an interesting reflection on the dynamics of political candidateship in Western Australia politics - and the unwritten and backroom movements of the WA Liberal party are not public domain material - (if ever), so the significance of the wannabes is in fact more significant than the comments above make any allowance for. Mediocrity is nothing to do with this individual above - but in fact being in the wrong place in the wrong time - Western Australian politics and the issues of the importance make WP:BLP a twisted road to negotiate - - to argue for delete and even take any notice of the original nominator is to fall in a trap of how it is possible for public figures to manipulate (or by proxy) their Bio's on WP Satu Suro 12:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN: an un-elected run-of-the-mill high-level civil servant. Besides, WP is not for posting résumés. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:22, 19 December 2011 (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.