Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steph Hodgins-May (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 keep. MelanieN (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steph Hodgins-May[edit]

[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:NPOL - an candidate unelected to any post of public service. Arguably also fails WP:GNG, coverage is routine political announcements, interviews, stories about her parents, trivial. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The impact of Hodgins-May on the Greens electoral fortunes within the Victorian Jewish community is significant and enough to keep the page under WP:GNG. The general discussion about whether the Greens are anti-semitic or anti-Zionist will often include references to Hodgins-May, and the incident is regularly referenced in campaigns when the Greens are running candidates. I am inclined to agree with your other points, that without the Jewish communal angle she would not be notable enough for an article, but because of her impact within that community I am a strong keep on this one.Playlet (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not persuaded that a subject's "impact" is a valid reason for inclusion, however where that impact is evidenced by RSs then of course policies such as WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO etc may be met. In this instance she may fail WP:NPOL however there seems to be a substantial number of RSs on the page that would meet the other relevant requirements. Additionally, a database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (wider and deeper than Google) revealed 229 results, which I haven't perused, but that would seem to indicate there would be ample RSs available. Cabrils (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. Additionally, the only sources which are not trivial passing mentions or interviews with any in-depth coverage are all pieces about her backing out of debate after she learned in was being hosted by a Zionist activist group, and all in Jewish press which understandably took an interest. It caused a bit of a local scandal in the Jewish community, but to my mind runs afoul of WP:BLP1E issues and neutrality issues as the sources themselves have a certain bias. If your greatest claim to fame is backing out of a debate that doesn't make you encyclopedically notable.4meter4 (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the subject notable? If so under what guideline?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:BIO for the reasons that Cabrils cited above. Deus et lex (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That'd be Playlet the struck sock, right? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on public interest basis: she may run for office again, and this page would be helpful to Australian voters in that case.Robert (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2022 (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.