Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Taylor

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. coverage appears insufficient Spartaz Humbug! 04:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Taylor[edit]

Pamela Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Subject is the nominated and past candidate for a major political party in a current election and is a noted community activist. Plenty of GHits detailing political candidacy. --99.231.163.135 (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC) — 99.231.163.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment – Still fails WP:POLITICIAN. The article lacks references that meet the criteria in WP:RS. I suggest you add the references you refer to to the article. ttonyb (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a nominated political candidate is not a criterion of notability on Wikipedia; holding political office is. A candidate who is already notable under other standards (e.g. a notable writer, journalist or athlete who is also a candidate) may have an article in spite of that, but if the candidacy is their primary claim of notability, then no. Wikipedia is not a campaign site. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Still lacks multiple substantial articles of coverage. ttonyb (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage has to be about her. Not just coverage of the general election which briefly mentions her; substantial coverage specifically of her. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She does not merit an article solely for being an electoral candidate, and she's not strongly notable otherwise. There are few to no WP:RS to demonstrate notability; with the exception of a still-quite-brief profile in the Ryerson University student newspaper, the sources here are not about her, but passing mentions of her in coverage of the 2007 election — and if the Ryerson piece is the only one that's about her specifically, then the expectation of substantial coverage still hasn't been met. And as for the notion that she's a current candidate, all coverage in reliable sources of the upcoming Toronto Centre by-election states that "the Ontario Progressive Conservatives have not yet had a candidate step forward." So while I suppose it's still possible that Taylor might step up in time for the nomination meeting, as of right now she isn't a current electoral candidate. As if that mattered anyway, given that candidates don't qualify for articles just on the basis of their candidacy. And as it turns out, the source which was being cited to support the statement that she is the party's candidate in the by-election, in fact, only supported the existence of the by-election, and didn't mention Ms. Taylor at all. And by the way, I live in Toronto Centre. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election. Major party candidate in a high-profile by-election. Article needs to be edited for POV and needs citations but shouldn't be deleted. Fred the happy man (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Because this is a by-election and was precipitated by the Deputy Premier's candidacy for the city's mayoralty, it is the subject of far more media coverage than it would ordinarily receive in a general election. For this reason, it is an election of great interest and voters ought to have access to information on those individuals seeking to win the seat. --99.231.163.135 (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's also taking place in downtown Toronto and will therefore generate a lot of media coverage in four metropolitan daily newspapers and numerous other media outlets.Fred the happy man (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a major party candidate in an election, general or by-election regardless, isn't sufficient notability for inclusion. Winning the election is. And you're missing the fact that she isn't a major party candidate in an upcoming by-election; the party hasn't chosen its candidate yet. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are incorrect. Please consult the article. The Progressive Conservative party has announced her as its candidate. [1] --99.231.163.135 (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, but the part about how being a major party candidate in an election isn't sufficient notability for inclusion still stands. Bearcat (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and unless she wins the 4 February 2010 election, Merge with Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election on 6 February 2010 (wait at least a day after the election to merge, as people might still be looking for this information a day or two later). In the most recent, previous by-election, what I just described is in fact what the consensus did: keep and then merge the losing candidates into the 2007 party articles. I am suggesting keeping this article out of fairness to the candidate, not for its content.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the Canada Politics group, we deem elected officials notable.--Abebenjoe (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. Per WP:POLITICIAN, all people duly elected to a national or state/provincial legislature are sufficiently notable for inclusion, with no exceptions, but not at the county or city level. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abebenjoe, you're missing a detail: the article claimed that she's the PC candidate in the byelection, but as of right now she isn't. And even if she were, people don't qualify for articles solely on the basis of being candidates for political office. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She's a candidate for the Tory nomination[5] - the only candidate - and the nomination meeting will occur next Tuesday. Should we wait until then before deciding whether or not to delete/merge? Fred the happy man (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa; as recently as just a few hours ago, media coverage of the by-election was still saying that nobody had stepped forward to contest the PC nomination yet, and the timestamp on that article is 4:30 p.m. (i.e. 83 minutes ago). But I digress. Even if she wins the nomination, being a candidate in an election doesn't, in and of itself, make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Electoral candidates only qualify for articles if they (a) win on election day, (b) were already notable enough for an article even before they were candidates, or (c) for either good or bad reasons, garner not just passing mentions in by-election coverage, but substantial coverage that's specifically about them. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to specify politicians that win a higher elected office such as an MP or MPP/MLA/MNA. Municipal politicians are not automatically notable, except maybe in a major media market like Toronto, Halifax, Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Vancouver, etc.--Abebenjoe (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2010 (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.
  1. ^ http://ontariopc.com/Home20/MediaRoom/NewsReleases/2010/January/271.aspx
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pamela_Taylor&oldid=1068848023"